Environmanut FT ni..i ;i:m
                                                                                                            EPA 731-R-05-001
                                                                                                                January 2005
                                    REPORT ON 2004 AenvrnE
       WHAT  s INSIDE
Introduction	2
Voluntary Partnerships	4
   PESP	4
     Formation / Membership	4
     Strategies / Champions / Liaisons	5
     Members	6
     Activities (by Sector)
       Antimicrobials	7
       Commercial & Residential Pest
        C ontrol	8
       Crop Consultants	11
       Environmental Organizations	12
       Field & Row Crops	13
       Food Processors	15
       Government	16
       Landscaping / Turf	18
       Non-Tree Fruits 	20
       Organic 	22
       Rights-of-Way 	22
       Schools	25
       Technology Transfer	27
       Tree Fruit & Nuts	29
       Vegetables 	32
   Strategic Agricultural Initiative	33
   IPM in Schools Initiative 	36
   Lawns & the Environment Initiative 	37
   Avian Environmental Indicators 	39
Assistance Agreements	39
   N ational Foundation for
     IPM Education	40
   American Farmland Trust	42
   Biopesticides Demonstration Project	44
   Regional Initiative PESP Grants	45
   Center for Agricultural Partnerships	48
   Economic Development
    Administration of Hawaii	49
Communications 	50
   ESB Communications Programs	50
Collaboration	51
PESP Evaluation	51
Conclusions	52
PESP Resources	53
Disclaimer	53
                                            Biopesticides & Pollution Prevention Division
                                                 Office of Pesticide Programs
                                                              EXECUTIVE  SUMMARY
    EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs
(OPP) regulates the use of pesticides for
both agricultural and non-agricultural
purposes under the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).
The law requires EPA to review uses of a
new pesticide before it is allowed to be sold
and used for pest control in the United
States—a process we call registration. At the
same time, the law requires EPA to review
the uses of older pesticides through
processes called special review and re-
    One cannot argue that regulation plays
an important role in safeguardinghealth
and the environment from potential
dangers posed by the use of pesticides.
However, to further reduce the risk
associated with the use of pesticides, OPP
has greatly expanded its collaborative
programs in environmental stewardship
over the last ten years.
    In 1992, the National Integrated Pest
Management (TPM) Forum identified the
lack ofnational commitment to IPM as the
number one constraint to its further
adoption. IPM is the coordinated use of
pest and environmental information with
available pest control methods to prevent
unacceptable levels of pest damage by the
most economical means and with the least
possible hazard to people, property, and the
    In 1994, EPA developed the Pesticide
Environmental Stewardship Program
(PESP) as a voluntary public-private
partnership to reduce pesticide risk. PESP
advocates the adoption of IPM practices
and promotes the use of biopesticides.
The first ten years of PESP were character-
ized by rapid growth, experimentation, and
innovation in which it evolved into a
mature, established program.  It is the
Agency's premier program dedicated to
voluntary partnerships for reducing
pesticide risk.
    In 2003, EPA recognized the need to
further expand its collaborative pesticide
risk reduction programs and created the
Environmental Stewardship Branch, located
in the Biopesticides and Pollution Preven-
tion Division. In 2004, the Branch
provided leadership, guidance, and resources
for a variety of voluntary partnership
programs that promote IPM and the
reduction ofpesticide risks.
    Through the Strategic Agricultural
Initiative, EPA is implementingmodel
agricultural partnerships to demonstrate
and facilitate the adoption of pest manage-
ment practices that provide growers with a
reasonable transition away from the highest
risk pesticides.
    By introducing IPM techniques to our
nation's schools, EPA is reducing pesticide
risks to millions of children nationwide.
    Through its participation in the Lawns
and the Environment Initiative, the Agency
is promoting responsible lawn and
landscapingpractices that will enhance the
value and benefits of residential landscapes
while protecting human health and the
    EPA also provides direct fun ding to
organizations that support the goals of
promoting IPM and reducing the risk of
    This report tells the story of these and
many other voluntary partnership efforts to
reduce pesticide risk, each partnership's
accomplishments, and the challenges faced
by EPA and its stakeholders.
    EPA will continue to provide leader-
ship, coordination, and resources (as
available) to further enhance our ability
to achieve our goals in the promotion of
environmental stewardship, adoption of
IPM, and reduction in the risks posed by

       Following a tradition established in
   2003, EPA's is publishing its second
   annual report on the the major accom-
   plishments of EPA's Office of Pesticide
   Programs and our partners in the area of
   environmental stewardship over a single
       This 2004 report provides an overview
   of the Pesticide Environmental Stewardship
   Program and other voluntary programs
   managed either solely by OPP or jointly
   with EPA's regional offices.

       EPA's voluntary pesticide environmen-
   tal stewardship programs are coordinated by
   the Environmental Stewardship Branch
   (ESB), located in the Office of Pesticide
   Programs' Biopesticides and Pollution
   Prevention Division (BPPD).  ESB is
   dedicated to reducing pesticide risk
   through collaborative and other non-
   regulatory means such as:
     • providing leadership, guidance, and
       resources for voluntary partnership
       programs nationwide that promote
       integrated pest management and the
       reduction of pesticide risks;
     • promoting projects,
       activities and approaches
       that result in measurable
       outputs, as defined by the
       Government Perfor-
       mance and Results Act
       (GPRA), including those
       that result in improve-
       ments to human health
       and the environment;
     • identifying and addressing
       key issues through the
       promotion of synergies
       and partnerships between
       organizations that share
       common goals;
     • keepingexternal partners
       informed of Agency
       programs and policies; and
     • promoting the adoption
       and use of biological
       pesticides (biopesticides)
       and reduced risk pesticides.
                 ESB is responsible for several
             innovative, public-private partnerships.
             Following are some of the major efforts
             underway to reduce pesticide risk
             without regulations:

             Pesticide Environmental Stewardship
                 PESP is a voluntary partnership
             between EPA and the pesticide user
             community to reduce the risks from the use
             of agricultural and non-agricultural
             pesticides.  Members set goals for pesticide
             risk reduction, develop strategies to achieve
             said goals, and report on their progress each

             Strategic Agricultural Initiative (SAI)
                 SAI is a program in OPP involving
             EPA's ten Regions. SAI staff work to
             demonstrate and facilitate the transition
             to reduced risk farm management

             IPM in Schools Initiative
                 Through OPP's Pesticides and Schools
             Team, EPA is encouraging school officials to
                                                   adopt IPM practices to reduce children's
                                                   exposure to pesticides.

                                                   Lawns and the Environment
                                                       EPA serves on the steering committee
                                                   of this initiative, which is designed to
                                                   encourage environmentally responsible
                                                   lawn and landscaping practices.

                                                   Environmental Indicators Project
                                                       OPP and Region 5 staff are working
                                                   together to develop a set of effective
                                                   environmental indicators using changes in
                                                   bird populations.

                                                   ASSISTANCE AGREEMENTS TO
                                                   DEMONSTRATE IPM / BIOPESTI-
                                                       To encourage growers and other
                                                   pesticide users to practice IPM and/or use
                                                   biopesticides, ESB works cooperatively with
                                                   other organizations through the following
                                                   assistance agreements:

                                                   National Foundation for IPM
                                                       N FIPME supports PESP and, through
                                                   a series of cooperative agreements, has
Branch Chief

Stephen Morrill        Manages ESB staff and oversees pollution prevention activities

 Edward Brandt        Lawns & Environment Initiative
                     Avian Environmental Indicators Project
                     PESP Evaluation
                     Sector Leader for:   Landscaping/Turf & Commercial/Residential Pest Control
 Frank Ellis            PESP Webmaster
                     N ational Foundation for IPM Education C ooperative Agreement Project Officer
                     Sector Leader for:   Food Processors
 Sherry Glick           PESP Liaison Training
                     IPM in Schools & OPP Schools Workgroup
                     Sector Leader for:   Environmental Organizations, Schools & Trade Associations
                     Project Officer for:  Center for Agricultural Partnerships Cooperative Agreement
                                     School Technical Resource Centers Grants
 Michael Glikes         PESP Communications including the PESP Update
                     Sector Leader for:   Field/Row C rop s
 Cheryl Greene        PESP News Exchange
                     Sector Leader for:  Tree Fruit & Nuts
 Steve Hopkins        Sector Leader for:  Crop Consultants & Government
 Diana Home         Biopesticide DemonstrationProject with USDA/IR4
                     Sector Leader for:   Non-Tree Fruits & Organic
 Regina Langton        Strategic Agricultural Initiative
                     American Farmland Trust Cooperative Agreement Project Officer
                     Sector Leader for:   Vegetables
 Glenn Williams       Sector Leader for:  Rights-of-Way & Technology Transfer
Page 2

funded projects to facilitate technology
transfer and significantly reduce
pesticide risk.

American Farmland Trust Center for
Agriculture in the Environment
    This grant promotes agricultural
pollution prevention with emphasis on
demonstratingpesticiderisk reduction and
IPM techniques to commodity groups.

Biopesticides Demonstration Project
    EPA and U SDA' s Interregional
Research Project #\ jointly  administer
and fund competitive grants that
promote the use of biopesticides as risk
reduction tools in mainstream agricul-
tural production.

Regional Initiative PESP G r ant s to
States and Tribes
    This grant supports research, public
education, training, monitoring, demon-
strations, and studies that advance pesticide
risk reduction. By practicing IPM and
transitioningfrom conventional to
biopesticides, growers demonstrate that
they are committed to environmental
stewardship and reducingpesticide risk.

Center for Agricultural Partnerships
    ESB has a cooperative agreement with
the Center to increase the adoption of
innovations in agriculture that reduce
pesticide risk . Risk reduction is achieved by
following a blueprint developed under this
agreement in 2002. The Center initiated
pilot projects to demonstrate how PESP
sector leaders, liaisons, and members can
effectively use the blueprint to create large-
scale, agricultural and environmental

Economic Development Administration
of Hawaii
    This grant supports demonstration
projects that accelerate the commercializa-
tion of biotechnology and, thereby, reduce
pesticide use in tropical agricultural

    ESB provides information about its
voluntary partnership programs through
the following communications services:
PESP Website
    The site provides an overview and
history of PESP, membership lists,
contact information for members and
their liaisons, all issues of the PESP
Update, member strategies, and grants

PESP Update
    The Update is a quarterly newsletter
mailed to 1,300 addressees, including
PESP members; select staff at EPA,
USD A and FDA; environmental
organizations; commodity groups; and
interested individuals.

PESP News Exchange
    The Exchange is an electronic
specialty news and alert service focused
on the advancement and exchange of
information related to environmental
stewardship partnership activities.

National Schools Update
    The Schools Update is a quarterly
electronic news service that features
articles on IPM in schools.

    Keeping track of other environmen-
tal stewardship activities and programs
within and outside of EPA
is also the responsibility of
the Environmental Steward-
ship Branch. Thus, ESB
staff serve on a variety of
steering committees,
commissions, and projects
that share the goals of
environmental stewardship
and reducing the risk of

Office of Pesticide
    ESB staff are respon-
sible for keeping OPP staff
and managers informed of
environmental stewardship
activities.  This is accom-
plished through briefings,
meetings, conferences,
participation in
workgroups and various
               EPA has many voluntary programs
           that share OPP's and ESB's goal of
           environmental stewardship. ESB staff
           track these programs and share valuable
           insights and information.

           External Programs
               Many programs and initiatives external
           to EPA share the Agency's environmen-
           tal stewardship goals. Whether coordi-
           nated by  other federal agencies or non-
           governmental organizations, ESB staff
           attend meetings, review documents, and
           distribute materials to participants of
           these other programs when appropriate.

               Excellence means never being
           satisfied with the status quo. In 2004,
           ESB, workingwith EPA's Office of
           Policy, Economics, and Innovation,
           completed an evaluation of PESP. The
           evaluation provided valuable informa-
           tion on which program elements have
           made PESP successful and which
           elements need improvement or redesign.
               The results and recommendations
           provided by the evaluation were
           analyzed by  ESB staff and used to
           prepare the 2005 PESP work plan.
                 EPA A-WJUUJS IJJU.MS KJK
               IVn.ftt Flttl UIs THt WlVJi (.f- IHjLLL\ATUtCl

                                     VOLUNTARY  PARTNERSHIPS
      The Pesticide Environmental Steward-
   ship Program is a voluntary program that
   forms partnerships with pesticide users to
   reduce the health and environmental risks
   associated with pesticide use. The goal of
   PESP is to reduce pesticide risk in both
   agricultural andnonagricultural settings.
      While government regulation can
   reduce pesticide risk, PESP is guided by the
   principle that, even in the absence of
   additional regulatory mandates, the
   informed actions of pesticide users reduce
   risk even further. Based on this principle,
   membership in the program is completely
      By joining, organizations pledge that
   environmental stewardship is an integral
   part of pest control, and they commit to
   working toward pesticide practices that
   reduce risk to humans and the environ-
   ment. Members take a strategic approach to
   risk reduction and undertake specific,
   measurable activities toward achieving their
   risk reduction goals.
      EPA recognizes the need to protect
   public health and the food supply with
   efficient, cost-effective pest control. In our
   role as a partner, the Agency promotes the
   adoption of innovative, alternative pest
   control practices that reduce pesticide risk.

      The National Integrated Pest Manage-
   ment Forum, sponsored by EPA in June
   1992, identified the lack of a national
   commitment to IPM as the number one
   constraint to its further adoption. In
   September 1993, EPA, U SDA, and FDA
   pledged to have 75% of the U. S. agricultural
   acreage under IPM by 2000 and to reduce
   the use of pesticides.
      The federal agencies held a stakeholder
   workshop in February of 1994 to gather
   their ideas, suggestions, and concerns about
   reducing pesticide use. A set of principles
   emerged which were used to guide develop-
   ment of an appropriate program. The
   guidingprinciples included:
     • a focus on risk reduction to humans and
       the environment, not merely use
       reduction, which may or may not lead to
       risk reduction:
     • inclusion of agricultural andnon-
    agricultural use sites.
  • fostering demonstration, adoption, and
    commercialization of alternatives,
    technologies, and practices that reduce
    use and risk.
  • leadership of the federal government by
    example with respect to its own use
    As a result of that meeting and the
precedingprinciples, EPA developed the
Pesticide Environmental Stewardship
Program. In December 1994, EPA, USD A
and FDA issued a joint press release
announcing PESP and its first members.

    Organizations with a commitment to
pesticide risk reduction are eligible to join
PESP either as Partners or Supporters.
Those that use pesticides or represent
pesticide users are eligible to become
PESP Partners. Organizations involved
with pesticide issues and which work with
pesticide users may join as PESP Support-
    In addition to formally signing a
statement to support the goals of PESP,
Partners and Supporters are required to
write a strategy that describes their long-
    term strategic approach to risk reduction
    and annual, measurable activities to
    achieve pesticide risk reduction.
        Since its inception in 1994 with ten
    charter members, PESP has grown to over
    140 members.
        Chart 1 presents the trend in member-
    ship since the program's inception.
        Chart 2 depicts the composition of
    members by PESP sectors, which are
    groupings ofmembers who share common
    pesticide issues.

           ChirM. Hcrnbirahip byYcor
               Chart 2.  Membership by Sector
       Tree Fruit & NUts
      Crop Consutants
     Technology Transfer
                  Commercial^ Residential
                       Pest Control
                 FieldJRow Crops
               Food Processors

    The PESP strategy process is intended
to help members adopt risk reduction
approaches in a consistent, goal-oriented
    In 2004, 75 strategies were submitted
(Chart 3). This represents a submission rate
of 50%, the highest rate since 2000.
    As part of the assessment process, the
strategies were reviewed by liaisons, sector
leaders, and ESB management.

    Based on the strategies submitted in
2003, EPA recognized 13 members as PESP
Champions. Recognition was based on their
outstanding efforts towards promoting
integrated pest management and reducing
pesticide risk, and for their extraordinary
level of commitment to protecting human
health and the environment (Table 1).

    Each PESP member is provided an
EPA liaison, from the Office of Pesticide
Programs or an EPA Regional office.
    The liaison works with the member to
provide information and assistance in
developing and implementing their strategy.
    Liaisons are these organizations' single-
point customer service representative at
EPA. They provide information on EPA
activities, assist in developing the Strategy,
and provide information on funding
opportunities to support strategy imple-
    ESB staff coordinate liaison training
and PESP sector
leaders facilitate
volunteers with
new members.
Over 130 EPA staff
have received liaison
                         Chart3.  Strategy Submissions
                         (strategies were not requested in 2001)
D Strategies
• Members
                                   TABLE 1.  2004 PESP CHAMPIONS

                                          Almond Board of California
                                         Artichoke Research Association
                                          Central Coast Vineyard Team
                                       Fischer Environmental Services, Inc.
                                           Gerber Products Company
                                             Glades Crop Care, Inc
                                   International Cut Flower Growers Association
                                       IPM Institute of North America, Inc.
                                    Lodi-Woodbridge Wine Grape Commission
                                          New York Power Authority
                                          U.S. Department ofDefense
                                   U.S. Hop Industry Plant Protection Committee
        Certificate of
             Prei-c rflrdlo
      U.S. Hop Industry
Plant Protection Committee
                              Demonstrating Outstanding Efforts
                                         Towards  Risk
                               Reduction and Recognized As A
                                     2004 PESP Champion
                                                                                                                Page 5

  Agricultural Conservation Innovation Center
  All Service Pest Management, Inc.
  Allegheny Power
  Allied Biological, Inc.
  Almond Board of California
  American Assoc. of Pesticide Safety Educators
  American Bird Conservancy Pesticides & Birds
  American Electric Power Service Corp.
  American Mosquito Control Association
  American Nursery and Landscape Assoc.
  American Peanut Council
  American Pest Management, Inc.
  Aqumix, Inc.
  Arizona Public Service
  Artichoke Research Association
  Association of Applied IPM Ecologists
  Association of Public Health Laboratories
  Auburn University -Dept. of Entomology &
     Plant Pathology
  Audubon International Cooperative
     Sanctuary Program
  Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies
  Bio-Integral Resource Center
  Brook field Zoo
  California Citrus Research Board
  California Dried Plum Board
  California Fresh Carrot Advisory Board
  California Lettuce Research Board
  California Melon Research Advisory Board
  California Pear Advisory Board
  California Pear Growers
  California Pistachio Commission
  CaliforniaTomato Commission
  Campbell Soup Company
  Center for Resource Management
  Central Coast Vineyard Team
  Central Maine Power Company
  Central Vermont Public Service
  Central Virginia Electric Cooperative
  Chicago Parks  District, Division of
  City of Davis (CA)
  Clemson University Public Service &
  Cranberry Institute
  Crooked River Weed Management Area
  Cuy ahoga County Board of Health
  Del Monte
  Duke Power Company
  Edison Electric Institute
  Energy Association ofPennsylvania
  Environmental Resource Center
  Farm & Home Environmental

Page 6
  Management Programs
Fischer Environmental Services Inc.
Florida Fruit & Vegetable Association
General Mills, Inc.
GeorgiaPeach Council
Gerber Products Company
Glades Crop Care, Inc.
Golf Course Superintendents Association of
Griggs County (ND) 319 Water Quality
Hawaii Area Wide Fruit Fly Pest
  Management Program
Hawaii Banana Industry Association
Hawaii Papaya Industry Association
Hawaiian Electric Company
Highlands Soil & Water
Hood River Grower-Shipper Association
Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy
International Cut Flower Growers Assoc.
IPM Institute of North America, Inc.
Kansas Corn Growers Association
Kansas Grain Sorghum Producers Assoc.
Kyrene Elementary School
Lake County Winegrape Commission
Lodi-Woodbridge Wine Grape
Louisiana Pest Management Association
Low Input Viticulture and Enology of
Maine Integrated Pest Management Council
Maryland Department of Agriculture
Massachusetts IPM Council
Massey Services, Inc.
Michigan Asparagus Research, Inc.
Michigan Cherry Committee
Mint Industry Research Council
Monroe County School Corporation
N ational Air Duct Cleaners Association
National Alliance of Independent Crop
National Council of Farmer Cooperatives
National Grape Cooperative, Inc.
National Grid
National Pest Management Association
National Pesticide Stewardship Alliance
National Potato Council
New England Fruit Consultants
New England Vegetable & Berry Growers
New York City Board of Education
New York Power Authority
New York State Electric & Gas
North American Pollinator Protection
Northeast Utilities
Northern Indiana Public Service Co.
Northwest Alfalfa Seed Growers Assoc.
Organic Golf Maintenance and Design
Organic Materials Review Institute
Organic Trade Association
Pacific Coast Producers
Pacific Gas & Electric
Parrot Jungle Island
Peach tree Pest Control Co, Inc.
Pear Pest Management Research Fund
Pebble Beach Company
PennsylvaniaPower& light
Pennsylvania Rural Electric Association
Pineapple Growers Assoc. ofHawaii
Professional Lawn Care Association of
Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc.
Progressive Agriculture Foundation
Rainforest Alliance-ECO o.k. Program
Reliable Pest Control
Sanitary Pest Control Company
SarasotaCo. Government Public Works
Sonoma Co. Grape Growers Association
Southwest School IPM Technical
  Resource Center
Steritech Group, Inc.
Summit County Combined General Health
Sunkist Growers
Sun-Maid Growers of California
Tennessee Valley Authority
Texas Pest Management Association
U.S. Apple Association
U.S. CanolaAssociation
U.S. Department ofDefense
U.S. GolfAssociation
U.S. Hop Industry Plant Protection Commit-
U.S. PublicHealth Service
U.S. Sugar Corporation
University of Florida Cooperative Extension
University ofWisconsin -Center for
  Integrated Agricultural Systems
VA, MD, & DE Association of Electric
Vegetation Managers, Inc.
Walnut Marketing Board
Walt Disney World Resort
Washington State Dept. of Agriculture
Washington State Dept. of Transportation
Wayne's Environmental Services, Inc.
Winter Pear Control Committee
Wisconsin Apple Growers Association
Wisconsin Public Service Corporation

                                         PESP ACTIVITIES
     In 2004, PESP members collaborated with EPA on a wide range of activities to further the adoption of IPM
and achieve meaningful reductions in pesticide risk.
     Many engaged in technical assistance, training, and outreach. Some researched solutions to pest problems for particular
crops or structural pests that offered anew alternative to conventional, chemical pesticides. Others took the next step of
demonstrating the efficacy of such alternatives in the field and evaluating their benefits in terms of reduced use of
conventional pesticides such as organophosphates.
     The following report of these activities is organized by PESP sector. In most cases, the activities listed were reported as accomplishments
in members' 2004 strategy documents, hence, the activities actually took place in 2003.
     For agricultural sectors, EPA provides a context for its discussion on the adoption of IPM and safer practices by includinginformation on
the use of biopesticides and reduced-risk pesticides. These summary statistics are based on data reported to EPA by Doane Marketing
Research, Inc., over an eight year period (1995 -2002).
     These data give a picture of how pesticide use is gradually changing as biopesticides and other alternatives find greater acceptance in the
marketplace. For the purpose of brevity and because the data are proprietary, the sector sections do not include data on pesticide use for specific
                                                  ANTIMICROBIALS SECTOR
    This sector, established in 2003, has
been recruiting charter members from key
associations and organizations which are
active in the technical and scientific arenas
related to antimicrobials pesticides.
    These arenas encompass a wide variety
of industries, including heating, ventilation
and air-conditioning systems, antifoulant
paints, food sanitization, mold and mildew
and related homebuildingissues, heavy duty
wood preservatives, and public health
laboratory testing.
    Antimicrobial pesticides are used
almost everywhere. They are substances or
mixtures of substances used to destroy or
suppress the growth of harmful microor-
ganisms —bacteria, viruses, or fungi on
 Sector Leader:  Susan Laing 703-308-0152
   Organizations Invited to Join
   American Wood-Preservers' Association
   Association of American Railroads
   Association of Public Health Laboratories
   National Air Duct Cleaners Association
   National Association of Home Builders
   National Food Processors Association
   National Paint & Coatings Association
   Treated Wood Council
inanimate objects and surfaces.
    Antimicrobial products contain
about 275 different active ingredients
and are marketed as sprays, liquids,
concentrated powders, and gases.
    Each year approximately one billion
dollars are spent on different types of
antimicrobial products. More than 5,000
antimicrobial products are currently
registered with EPA for sale in the U. S.
    Antimicrobial pesticides have two
major uses: (1) to disinfect, sanitize, reduce,
or mitigate growth or development of
microbiological organisms; and (2) to
protect inanimate objects (e.g., floors and
walls), industrial processes or systems,
surfaces, water, or other chemical substances
from contamination, fouling, or deteriora-
tion caused by bacteria, viruses, fungi,
protozoa, algae, or slime.
    Antimicrobial pesticides also act as
preserving agents in paints, metalworking
fluids, wood supports, and many other

    The challenge for the first year was to
recruit and train liaisons to work with
the new sector. This was successfully
accomplished in 2003-2004 with seven
new liaisons recruited from within
OPP's Antimicrobials Division.
    The challenge for next year will be to
continue to recruit members and help them
develop meaningful strategies.
    There is a great deal of excitement
related to the issues the industry is currently
facing. For example, wood preservatives,
particularly chromated copper arsenate
(CCA), mold, and anthrax are all high
profile areas and have commanded scientific
and media attention.
    New protocols are being developed for
the treatment of bacteria (e.g., anthrax) and
viruses (e.g., monkey pox andNorwalk), and
for cleaningup the effects ofmold and
    Research on wood preservatives and
registering alternatives are also priority
    Communicatingthe critical role that
antimicrobial pesticides play in EPA's
mission of protecting hum an health and
the environment is integral to all of the new
strategies under development for 2005.
    The followingtwo organizations were
the sector's Charter Members:

Association of Public Health
   Laboratories safeguards the public's
   health by strengthening public health
   laboratories in the U.S. and around the
   world. In collaboration with members,
   they advance laboratory systems and
   practices, and promote policies that
   support healthy communities.
                                                                                                   (Continued on p. 8)
                                                                                                                            Page 7

 (Antimicrobials - from p. 7)
  National Air Duct Cleaners Associa-
     tion is a non-profit trade association
     dedicated to the progression of the
     heating, ventilation and air condition-
     ing (HVAC) hygiene industry. Its
     mission is to lead the domestic and
     international industry in standard
     setting, research, information
     dissemination, and the promotion of
     ethical practices. The Association
     has submitted a PESP strategy  that
     was approved by EPA.

       The folio wing organizations were also
  invited to join the Antimicrobials Sector
  and are considering joining:

  Association of American Railroads
     members include the major freight
     railroads in the United States, Canada,
     and Mexico, as well as Amtrak, all users
     of treated wood. Railroads are a major
     user of creosote for treatment in ties
     (70%), which is a wood preservative
     registered by EPA.

  National Association  of Home
     Builders, the  trade association that
     promote policies that make housing a
     national priority, assists its members,
     the housing industry, and the public
     at large.  It deals with issues related to
     treated wood as well as the control of
     mold in residential settings.

  National Food Processors Association
     represents the $500 billion food
     processingindustry on scientific and
     public policy issues involving food
     safety, food security, nutrition, technical
     and regulatory matters and consumer
     affairs. The association's interests
     include sanitation and disinfection in
     food processingplants, as well as
     consumer safety issues.

  Treated Wood Council is thenational
     industry trade association representing
     the pressure-treated wood industry
     throughout the U.S. Member
     companies work to conserve forest
     resources, preserve the environment,
     and extend the life of wood products
     through the manufacture of pressure-
     treated wood.
    The Commercial & Residential Pest
Control Sector consists ofpest control
companies and the trade associations that
represent them.
    Organizations in this sector provide
structural and general pest control in
commercial buildings and residences. They
also control
and other
common to
the urban and
mercial and
pest control
members deal
mostly with
insecticides and rodenticides. These partners
favor approaches to risk reduction that
                              of herbicides and fungicides.  Overall,
                              residential control accounts for 65% and
                              non-residential the remaining 35%.

                                  While members have accomplished
                              a great deal in the past ten years, there
Sector  Leader:                             Ed Brandt       703-308-8699
Members                                   Liaisons
  All Service Pest Management, Inc.             DianaHorne       703-308-8367
  American Mosquito Control Association        Kevin Sweeney     703-305-5063
  American Pest Management, Inc.              Bonnie Adler       703-308-8523
  Fischer Environmental Services Inc.           Glenn Williams     703-308-8287
  Louisiana Pest Management Association        Kable Davis       703-306-0415
  Massey Services, Inc.                        Tracey Hayes       703-308-9358
  National Pest Management Association       Kevin Sweeney    703-305-5063
  Peachtree Pest Control Co., Inc.             David Donaldson  703-308-9546
  Reliable Pest Control                       David Donaldson   703-308-9546
  Sanitary Pest Control Company               Glenn Williams     703-308-8287
  Steritech Group, Inc.                       SusanneCerrelli    703-308-8077
  Walt Disney World Resorts                  Candy Brassard     703-305-6598
  Wayne's Environmental Services, Inc.        Tracy White       703-308-0042
                             remain substantial opportunities for the
                             adoption of IPM practices, reduced
                              toxicity, targeted pesticides, and better
                              operator training and education.
                                  Considering that growingurban
                              populations and densities increase pest
                              pressures, this sector is a strong candidate
                              for additional efforts that enhance pesticide
                              risk reduction.
                                  Typical risk-reduction practices used in
                              this industry include targeting pesticide
                              applications; removing food and habitat;
                              usingbaits, traps, and lower toxicity
                              pesticides; and improvinghousekeeping
                                  Effectiveness, cost, and human and
                             environmental safety are the most
                             important considerations for consumers
                             making purchasing decisions.
reduce exposure to organophosphates,
carbamates, and synthetic pyrethroids,
particularly indoors. Principal strategies
include prevention, monitoring and
product formulation usingbaits. Sector
members deal with important public
health pests including cockroaches,
mosquitoes and rodents.
    According to Kline and Company
(1997), there are 14,251 structural pest
control companies in the U.S., and over half
of the firms are located in the southern U. S.
    Insect control accounts for 95% of
sales, rodenticides (3%), avicides (1%), and
the remaining 1% come from a combination
                                                                                         Thbolium confusum

    Members in this sector are address-
ing these challenges by disseminating
information to applicators and other
technicians through
workshops, training
sessions, fact sheets,
and other means.
emphasize outreach
and education to the
general public through
Websites, information
exchange, newsletters,
and the public media.
Members have reduced
the use of injected
dusts and foggers,
in creased use of
termite baits in place of barrier treatments,
and reduced the use of py rethroid dusts
and sprays for structural pests.
    In mosquito control, members made
progress in aerial spray programs through
the calibration of aircraft and ground spray
booms andby optimizingcorrelations of
droplet size andlarvicide efficacy.
    The activities and accomplishments of
members follow:

All Service Pest Management, Inc.
   promotes structural IPM by focusing
   on bilingual, consumer education.

American Mosquito Control
   Association  (AMCA) is a national
   professional organization reducing
   pesticide risk by  researching and
   advocating IPM practices for
   mosquito control. AMCA
   encourages source reduction
   techniques, bio-rational larvicides,
   surveillance techniques, and targeting
   mosquitoes with  Global Positioning
   Systems (GPS).
     AMCA encourages its members to
   joinPESP, and it
   documents national
   progress in pesticide
   risk reduction such as:
   • an aerial spray
    program that
    calibrates aircraft and
    ground spray booms
    and optimizes
    droplet size/larvicide
    efficacy correlations;
    trainingworkshops for applicators;
    certification of public health pest control
    outreach programs for homeowners to
     reduce mosquito breeding sites and
                            exposure to
                            • extensive
                            of vector
                            for West Nile
                            and other
                            viruses to
                            better target

American Pest Management, Inc., a
   structural pest control firm, is committed
   to the use of IPM practices such as
   structural repair (e.g., caulking and
   screening) and habitat modification (e.g.,
   sanitation) as first lines of defense to
   control pests.
     American Pest Management is one of
   agrowinggroup of companies changing
   the paradigm from scheduled spray ing to
   a more information-intensive IPM
   approach which includes monitoring for
   pests and then choosing ex elusion,
   sanitation, and reduced risk products
   (e.g., traps and baits) to manage them.
   Activities included:
   • phasing-out chlorpyriphos products in its
   • convertingcommercial customers
     including apartment managers and food
     service operators from liquid insecticides
     to reduced risk formulations.
Fischer Environmental Services, Inc. is
   recognized as a 2004 PESP Champion.
   Their 2004 strategy seeks to reduce the
   total amount of pesticides used while
   improving efficacy.
                       approach included
                       the following
                       • reducing or
                       eliminating all
                       broadcast applica-
                       tions in favor of
                       more precise,
    targeted applications;
  • targetingresidential structures for
    environmental modification;
  • increasing customer awareness of IPM
  • increasing technician trainingin exclusion-
    ary practices;
  • eliminating the use of chemicals with a
    higher warninglevel than Caution on the
  • reducingtotal volume of active ingredient
    used in structures.

Louisiana Pest Management Association
   joined PESP in 2004. They are pursuing
   along-term goal ofreducingpesticide
   use and risk whilemaintainingefficacy.
   This is being accomplished by increasing
   education and training of their members
   on the principles, benefits and
   advantages of IPM, while informing
   consumers of the beneficial changes to
   their services and environment.

Massey Services, Inc. uses the safest,
   most effective procedures and
   technologies  available to manage
   pests. When pesticides are a part of
   the  solution,  they evaluate each
   situation to ensure the least negative
   impact on employees, customers, and
   the  environment. Massey:
  • screened and purchased reduced risk
    products for use in service calls,
    preferringto use only Toxicity Category
    III and IV products;
  • reduced use ofinjected dusts and
    foggers, and increased use of baits;
  • instituted a change from monthly to
    quarterly service cycle;
  • disseminated outreach through fact
    sheets, web site, and reports of pest-
    conducive conditions on lawns for
    prospective clients;
  • used termite baits in preference to barrier
    treatments on existing structures;
  • instituted aprogram for termite control
    in new construction usingborates and

National Pest Management
   Association met with EPA to discuss
   its Quality Pro certification program and
   may consider using this as a basis for
   setting criteria for general pest
   management.  Additionally, they were
   involved in the following activities:
                                                                                                   (Continued on p.  10)
                                                                                                                             Page 9

 (Commercial & Residential - from p. 9)
     ' creating trainingin the changing
       technologies used by the industry;
     • supportingits members in the use of
       IPM to manage structural pests.

  Peachtree Pest Control Co.,  Inc.
     joined PESP in December, 2003. The
     company provides pest control,
     termite control and lawn care using an
     IPM approach that integrates preventive
     and corrective measures to reduce pests
     to a mutually acceptable level. The
     measures include inspection, sanitation,
     identification, exclusion (mechanical and
     chemical), monitoring, and when
     necessary, utilization of pesticides.

  Reliable Pest Control was involved in
     the following activities:
     • implemented IPM techniques to reduce
       environmental risks from pesticides;
     • demonstrated to other small pest control
       companies that they can
       minimize environmental
       impacts by the judicious use
     • decreased the frequency of
       pesticide applications;
     • moved to reduced-risk
       formulations and eliminated
       organophosphates from their
     • educated consumers on the
       importance of sanitation and
       environmental modifications to and
       around structures.

  Sanitary Pest  Control  Company
     provides residential and commercial
     customers with IPM, including least-
     toxic alternatives for the management of
     indoor pests. To eliminate or reduce
     risks from the use of conventional
     insecticides in crack, crevice and w all void
     treatments, the company utilizes the
     Sanitary Pest Contra I Sj stem, apatented,
     portable refrigeration unit that delivers
     freezing air from the tip of a wand
     applicator to flush and kill insects on
     contact.  Baits  are also used where
        Last year the company:
     • increased crack and crevice treatments in
       place of floor/wall junction sprays;
     • used baits and traps to monitor propri-
       etary Freeze Zone technology.
Steritech Group, Inc. eliminates, to
   the maximum extent possible, the use
   of conventional toxic residual sprays
   and contact aerosols. To do this, the
   company promotes the use of low-
   toxicity products, indudingbaits, dusts,
   and reduced risk products. It improved
   its trapping efforts, and it is increasing its
   emphasis on technician training. Last
   year, the company:
   • reduced use of toxic bait blocks for
     rodent control;
   • reduced use of py rethroid dusts and
     sprays for structural pests.

Wayne's Environmental Serviceswas
   new to PESP in 2004.  They offer
   complete lawn care and pest control
   management for commercial and
   residential properties in the Birmingham,
   Alabama area. The company focuses on
   a perimeter pest control program that
                           pests from
                           inside the
                           home or
                           of pest
   harborage (clogged downspouts, gutters
   and mulch dose to the house) and
   elimination of pest access (attic vents,
   kitchen plumbingpipes, and chimney).

Walt Disney World, one of the largest
   amusement parks in the world, is located
   in Florida. In 2003, it reported the
   following activities as part of PESP:
   • con trolling mosquitoes using carbon
     dioxide as an attractant;
   • instituting a rodent
     control program using
     aerial photography and
     rodent bait stations that
     are bar coded for
     information gathering;
   • producing a pest
     management monthly
   • using beneficial insects
     as part of its turf
     management program.
Page 10

                                               CROP CONSULTANTS SECTOR
    This sector includes members
representing independent consultants
and consultant organizations that
provide advice, research, and technical
support to the agricultural industry.
Independent crop consultants, who
number about 3,500 nationally, are a
significant source of technological
information to farmers.
    Their importance in augmenting
                  Sector Leader:
                                           management practices is research into
                                           alternatives, development of holistic
                                           processes that make such alternatives
                                           viable, and efforts to promote these
                                           practices among growers.  The most
                                           critical constraints to this transition for
                                           growers are finding the time and chang-
                                           ing their processes.
                                               Crop consultants play a major role in
                                           the implementation of new  technologies
                                           and processes in farm communities. PESP
          reduce pesticide risk through the
          following activities:
            • grower education, training, and
              outreach programs;
            • adoption of alternatives to organophos-
              phate and carbarn ate insecticides, and
              reducing reliance on conventional
            • technology transfer, demonstration, and
              evaluation ofnew processes and
              techniques for pest management;
                              • contract research.
                    Association of Applied IPM Ecologists
                    Glades Crop Care, Inc.
                    National Alliance of Independent Crop Consultants
                    New England Fruit Consultants
transfer is
increasing, just as
the one-on-one,
traditionally provided by government
agricultural extension programs is
    The Crop Consultants Sector is
comprised of four organizations, two
consultants and two umbrella consultant
    Glades Crop Care, was recognized for
the third consecutive year as a PESP
Champion in 2004 forks work in furthering
the adoption of IPM.
    These members are providing direct
information for farmers and in some cases
are developing complementary relationships
with cooperative extension programs.
    Because of the critical role crop
consultants play in the selection and use of
pesticides and their integrated approach to
problem solving, PESP will continue to
recruit new members into this sector in 2004
and beyond.
    A major challenge
faced by this sector is
the need for integrated
pest management
options that are
manageable, effective,
realistic and offer
economically viable
alternatives to tradi-
tional pesticides.
    Crucial to the
transition to safer pest
Steve Hopkins
Steve Hopkins
Sherry Click
to be assigned
Ben Gregg

                                           and its members need to identify
                                           successful approaches and technologies
                                           that can facilitate wholesale change in
                                           actions across the nation.
                                               PESP and its crop consultant
                                           members can play a major role in
                                           bringing IPM practices to growers and
                                           institutionalizing the practices.
                                               PESP hopes to build on the strengths
                                           of this sector in technology transfer,
                                           information exchange, demonstrations,
                                           technical workshops, and outreach. At the
                                           same time, we will identify way s to measure
                                           the outcomes of these efforts in reducing
                                           pesticide risk and increasingmembership in
                                           the sector.

                                           SECTOR MEMBERS AND  ACTIVITIES
                                               Members of the Crop Consultants
                                           Sector share common goals and work to
                 GladesCrop Care,
                 Inc., an independent
                 research and
                 consulting firm with
                 headquarters in
                 Jupiter, Florida, is
the largest crop consulting firm  in the
state. Glades has earned national and
international recognition for
innovative pest and disease
management programs, including
recognition in 2004, for the third
consecutive year, as a PESP
  Glades has continued:
• their food safety  education and
   auditing public outreach program
   to promote proper pesticide use;
• apply ing multi-attribute toxicity
   factors to resistance management
• a GIS\GPS system to promote
   region-wide coordination of pest
   management activities,
   development and field evaluation
   of pest management strategies;
• further work on green label
   development and outreach;
• conducting extensive outreach on
   IPM to the public, growers and
   communities; and
• to be a leader in pesticide risk
   reduction in the high-value, heavily
   agricultural areas of Florida.
                                                                                      National Alliance of Independent Crop
                                                                                         Consultants (NAIC C) is the national
                                                                                         society of agricultural professionals who
                                                                                         provide research and advisory services to
                                                                                         clients for a fee. The Alliance has over
                                                                                         500 members in 40 states and several
                                                                                                                       Page 11

 (Crop Consultants - from p. 11)

      foreign countries with expertise in the
      production of most crops grown
      around the world.

   New England Fruit Consultants is an
      independent agricultural consulting
      firm that provides IPM information
      and recommendations pertinent to all
      aspects of tree fruit production. They
      focus on transferring reduced-risk
      practices, educating growers on IPM,
      and reducing the risks, especially to
      workers, from pesticide use.  Their
      current strategy includes research,
      outreach, education, evaluation and
      field trials of non-organophosphate
      and non-carbamate tree fruit pest
      management techniques.
  Sector Leader:
    Environmental Resource Center
    North American Pollinator Protection Campaign
    This sector was formed to provide a
place in the program for non-grower/non-
pesticide user organizations whose missions
relate to pesticide risk reduction.
    There are dozens of such organizations
throughout the U. S. that represent thou-
sands of citizens interested in protecting the
environment. EPA has alonghistory of
workingvoluntarily with environmental
organizations to reduce the risk of pesti-
    Many of these organizations now have
an opportunity to formalize this partner-
ship through their participation in PESP.
    In 2003, the North American Pollinator
Protection Campaign (NAPPC) joined
PESP as a Supporter. NAPPC is a coalition
of scientific researchers, state and federal
agencies, private industry, and conservation
and environmental groups dedicated to
ensuring sustainable populations of
pollinatinginvertebrates, birds, and
mammals throughout the U.S., Canada, and
    NAPPC coordinates local, national, and
international action projects in the areas of
pollinator research, education and aware-
ness, conservation and restoration, and
policies and practices.
    NAPPC also promotes special
partnership initiatives to facilitate communi-
         Sherry Click
         Gabe Patrick

cation among stakeholders, build strategic
coalitions, leverage existing resources, and
have a positive and measurable impact on
the populations and health of pollinating
    This year, NAPPC and the U S Botanical
Gardens co-sponsored a pollination exhibit
visited by more than 25,000 guests. Because
of the overwhelming response, the exhibit
plans to stay open for a longer period.
Several staff from the Office of Pesticide
also visited
the exhibit.
PESP this
year. ERG
sustainable environments through commu-
nity education, awareness and participation.
    Located in Idaho, with over 700
members, ERG is dedicated to fostering
dose, personal relationships with the
environment, and conservation ethics
among the residents and guests of the
Wood River Valley and surrounding
 communities.  ERG initiates programs,
 activities, and events that provide the
 facilities and resources for educating the
 public about local and global environmen-
 tal issues.
     Eventually, PESP will provide
 opportunities for a wide variety of
 environmental organizations to work
 closely with EPA.
     Many of the activities in this sector are
 evolving from networking with existing
 sectors, including Technology Transfer,
 Schools, Landscaping/Turf, and those that
 are agriculturally based.
Page 12

                                              FIELD & Row CROPS SECTOR
    This sector encompasses the vast
majority of agricultural acreage in the United
States and is an important segment of the
nation's economy. It includes corn, cotton,
wheat, rice, soybeans, potatoes, peanuts,
hops, sugar, mint, alfalfa, canola, and
tobacco. Many of these commodities already
are represented in PESP, and EPA will be
 Sector Leader:

   American Peanut Council
   Kansas Corn Growers Association
   Kansas Grain Sorghum Producers Association
   Mint Industry Research Council
   National Potato Council
   Northwest Alfalfa Seed Grower Association
   U.S. CanolaAssociation
   U.S. Hop Industry Plant Protection Committee
   U.S. Sugar Corporation
2002. Between 1996 and 2002, there was a
four-fold increase in acres treated with
biopesticides in this sector. This increase in
the use of biopesticides largely can be
attributed to the rapid adoption of Bt corn
and Bt cotton. Since EPA established a
reduced-risk registration program in 1996,
the acres treated with safer, chemical
formulations has increased eight times.
Michael G likes
Michael Glikes
Carol Frazer
Carol Frazer
Frank Ellis
Janet Andersen
Shanaz Bacchus
Dennis Szuhay
Amy Rispin

working with grower groups of the
unrepresented commodities to bring them
into the program in 2005 and the years
    Kansas, one the nation's largest corn
producing states, participates in PESP and
was represented by its association of corn
and grain sorghum growers. At the national
level, grower associations represent several
commodities, in eluding potatoes, peanuts,
hops, mint, and canola. Other members
include a regional association of alfalfa seed
growers in the Pacific Northwest and a
private company that grows sugar in
    This sector represents approximately
800 million acres treated with pesticides,
with about 4% of these acres treated with
biopesticides and an additional 8% treated
with other reduced-risk pesticide products in
    Increasing the adoption of IPM on
agricultural acreage in the U. S. is a goal
shared by EPA and the U.S. Department of
Agriculture. Achieving this goal will largely
depend on the commitment of growers
within this sector. The transition to IPM
practices-mainly monitoring and inspecting
before applyingpesticides -is especially
challenging for growers responsible for high
volume crops such as corn and potatoes
because they have so many acres to monitor
and inspect.
    These practices are more readily
deployed in growingmore specialized,
minor crops because such crops usually do
not cover as much land and bringgreater
returns per acre than most field/row crops
(with the possible exception of cotton).
Furthermore, making a transition away
     from the routine spraying of conven-
     tional pesticides requires a cultural
     change that will not happen overnight.
         Another major challenge shared
     by all members of this sector is  a need
     for research on effective, biologically-
     based and chemical alternatives to
     some of the higher risk conventional
     pesticides. Members also would
     benefit from the demonstration and
     promotion of these practices among
     their growers. The 4% adoption rate
for biopesticides is a clear indicator that
there is room for growth in this area.
Increasing the use of biologically-based,
IPM practices, in particular, is a challenge
shared by EPA.
     In the past decade, one success has
been thegrowingpopularity of planting
seeds that are genetically-engineered to
resist pests. Among herbicides, the
reduced-risk chemical gly phosate is widely
used in this sector, and crops such as
cotton and soybeans can now be grown
using varieties that are genetically-engi-
neered to resist this particular chemical.
     However, the sudden success of some
other new varieties-Bt corn, Bt cotton, and
Bt potato -was followed by criticisms of
these biologically-based technologies
mainly due to uncertainties about long-
term effects on human health and the
     Other types ofbiological insecticides
have not caught on so fast because they
usually target a specific insect species, cost
more, and are more difficult to apply than
the broad-spectrum, conventional products
they are intended to replace.
    EPA recognizes the value of field
demonstrations of promising alternatives
as a means to reduce barriers to the
adoption ofbiopesticides and other
reduced risk alternatives. Collaborative,
voluntary efforts such as those represented
in PESP promise to be a potent means to
this end and EPA will work to help share
and transfer this information to other
PESP members and unrepresented
commodity groups as well. Finally, PESP
is expanding this sector in 2005 by
recruitingnew commodity associations.
                                                                                                  (Continued on p.  14)
                                                                                                                          Page 13

 (Field & Row Crops - from p.  13)
       The members represented in the
   Field & Row Crops Sector worked
   toward reducing the risks associated with
   pesticide use through the following
     • grower education, training, and
       outreach programs;
     • programs to promote adoption of a
       code of sustainable agricultural
     • self-assessment, positive point and
       certification programs to track
       progress and document adherence to
       sustainable practices code;
     • adoption of alternatives to organo-
       phosphate and carbamate insecti-
       cides, and reduced reliance on
       conventional pesticides.
   Kansas Corn Growers Association and
     Kansas Grain Sorghum Producers
     Association encourage pesticide
     environmental stewardship among
     Kansas' corn and grain sorghum
     growers.  Last year, the Associations
     promoted the responsible use of
     pesticides through press releases,
     newsletters, radio spots, and displays at
     farm shows and crop schools. They
     also cooperated with growers to
     educate them about the use of best
     management practices to help reduce
     non-point source runoff from

   Mint Industry Research Council
     supports research and programs to
     enhance the productivity of high
     quality mint while minimizing adverse
     impacts on the environment. Last year,
     the Council:
     • developed and evaluated experimental
       peppermint and spearmint varieties
       for pest and disease resistance;
     • evaluated a new reduced-risk pesticide
Page 14
    for controlling spider mites;
    conducted pesticide and fertilizer use
    survey s in Idaho and Washington;
    funded research on the use of mint
    oils for weed and disease control on
    other crops, such as potatoes and
Northwest Alfalfa Seed Growers
   Association is working to improve its
   IPM program, which is designed to
   protect pollinators, control pests,
   reduce the use of pesticides, increase
   yields, and ensure the long-term
   profitability for growers in the western
   U.S. In 2004, the association reported
   that it educated growers by providing
   information regarding optimal IPM
   practices through its website, periodic
   publications, and its annual seed school,
   which brings together university
   researchers, the seed industry,
   biochemical experts, government
   personnel, and growers.  The
   association conducted research in four
   primary areas of IPM:
   • maintenance and development of
    low toxicity insecticides to provide
    chemical control of pests while not
    destroying the effective use of
    cultural and biological methods of
    controlling them;
    use of cultural practices which
    contribute to the reduction of pests
    and the protection  of natural preda-
    identification, propagation, and
    protection of insects that provide
    biological control of alfalfa, seed
    pests; and
    continuing research on biotechnology
    as it relates to pest management.
National Potato Council (NPC)
   developed a definition for
   potato production IPM to
   guide its members in adopting
   safer pest management
   practices, thereby, reducing
   pest risk. In 2004, the NPC
   reported that it:
  • recognized four potato
    growers as NPC Environ-
    mental Stewardship Award
  • worked with state potato
    organizations to have potato
    growers complete a survey
    to evaluate their IPM practices;
  • worked with USDA on projects in
    every major potato producing state -
    the single largest target for these
    funds was research on late blight,
    reflecting the widespread and
    destructive nature of this pest; and
  • worked with USDA to develop and
    commercialize potato varieties that
    are pest or virus resistant and,
    thereby, reduce chemical applica-

U.S. Hop Industry Plant Protection
   Committee is developing IPM
   programs for major hop growing
   regions to produce sufficient, high
   quality hops for the world market and
   reduce pesticide risk to the work force,
   consumers, and the environment. U.S.
   Hops was recognized as a PESP
   Champion in 2004 for its commitment
   to environmental stewardship. In 2004,
   it reported that it:
  • published baseline pesticide usage
    data and analyses based on the results
    of grower surveys in 1998 and 1999;
  • conducted field and greenhouse
    efficacy testing  on several reduced
    risk and biopesticide products, and
    exchanged results with hop research-
    ers in Germany, thereby,  allowing
    both countries to identify promising
    new compounds for concurrent
  • held educational meetings and grower
    field days; and
  • coordinated hop entomology,
    pathology, weed science, and genetics
    programs to develop cost-effective
    IPM strategies for U.S. commercial
    hop producing areas and new hop
    varieties with genetic resistance to
    certain pests and diseases.

                                               FOOD PROCESSORS  SECTOR
    This sector includes members that are
food processors or associations that
represent food processors. Food processing
is a $500 billion dollar industry that exerts a
tremendous influence on how agricultural
practices are conducted in the  gector Leader:
United States and worldwide.
In fact, several members sell
agricultural products to both
domestic and international
markets. All members are
involved in the processingof
foods that are key components of children's
diets. Hence, the members are active
proponents of IPM and other practices that
reduce pesticide risks.

    As with all agricultural producers, a
major challenge for members in this  sector is
the need for research on effective reduced-
risk alternatives to conventional pesticides.
Competition and protection ofbrand
identity are also considerations. Members
are reluctant to share information regarding
approaches and technologies that work.
Also, because each organization handles its
product sourcing and pest management
programs differently, their approaches to
transitioninggrowers to safer pest manage-
ment practices vary greatly.
    Fortunately, members of this sector
have overcome their reluctance to discuss
pesticide use and are sharing information
about their activities. As PESP builds
stronger relationships within this sector, it is
hoped that information sharing and
technology transfer among these companies
will be improved. This sector is ripe for
growth because other food processors would
surely benefit from the knowledge and
experience of current PESP members.
    Members share common goals and
most have worked to reduce the risk  from
pesticides through the following types of
   • grower education,  training, and outreach
   • preparation and distribution of lists of
    higher risk pesticides;
   • programs to promote adoption of
    reduced-risk pest management
   • programs to track  adherence to
Campbell Soup Company
Del Monte
General Mills, Inc.
Gerber Products Company
pesticide tolerance levels in raw and
finished product;
adoption of alternatives to organophos-        •
phate and carbamate insecticides, and
reduced reliance on conventional
pesticides, in general.
              Frank Ellis       703-308-8107

              Kevin Costello    703-305-5026
              Frank Ellis       703-308-8107
              Ed Brandt        703-308-8699
              Sherry Click      703-308-7035
                  Campbell Soup Company works with
              their growers, agriculture organizations,
              regulatory agencies, and land grant colleges,
              to identify keys to improved practices and
              increasing adoption of sustainable agricul-
              ture practices. Working with these groups
              through on-farm programs, research and
              education, improve sustainable practices and
              their implementation.  Campbell's activities
                • initiating and supporting a tomato
                  disease forecasting network that
                  improved disease control under high
                  disease pressure and reduced fungicide
                  applications by 50% under light disease
                • reducingmethamidophos-OP applica-
                  tions through cultural management, use
                  of alternative insecticides, and prescrip-
                  tive use of OPs; and
                • introducing a line of certified organic
                  tomato juice.
                  Del Monte Foods, a major producer
              of processed fruits, vegetables, and
              tomatoes with facilities in California, the
              Northwest, Midwest and Texas, sources
              raw products from 3,000 growers over
              eight states with  some 160,000 acres of
              fruits and vegetables. Their strategic
              approach is to ensure a stable, high
              quality, and economic supply of raw
              product by supporting research, develop-
              ment, implementation, and advice on IPM
              systems that fully consider the safety of
              the food supply, employees, and the
              environment.  Their specific activities
                • instituting pesticide residue and
                  chemical contaminant management
                  program on 28,000 Ib of raw product for
                  newly acquired baby food line;
                • utilizing low-risk seed treatment for
                  suckinginsect control on 75% of
                  commercial bean seed intended for
    Midwest and Texas production as an
    organophosphate replacement;
    improving leafhopper control in
    Northwest seed production to elimi-
    nate OP applications through a
    combination of improved monitoring
      and use of seed treatments.
          General Mills, Inc. is
      working toward eliminating all
      detectable pesticide residues in its
      finished products. They are
      pursing this through agricultural
      research, funding IPM research,
assisting biopesticide registrants, and
assisting suppliers, alliance partners, and
co-packers with developing and imple-
menting IPM practices. General Mills is:
  • including biopesticides in research trials
    in the U S and Mexico;
  • workingwith processingplants to
    implement biopesticides into small
    scale field production of various crops
    leading to full scale implementation
    where appropriate;
  • reducing pyrethroid insecticide use in
    sweet corn through education and
    information to pest control supervisors
    on application timing, moth trap data,
    and application rates along with better
    cleaning equipment in processing
    plants; and
  • working to eliminate OP use in broccoli
    and cauliflower production in Mexico.
    Gerber Products Company
produces some 200 food products,
including organic baby food, for distribu-
tion in over 80 countries. Gerber is
dedicated to the elimination of all
detectable residues in its finished products
and funds research to develop and
implement IPM practices to reduce or
eliminate pesticide applications on the
crops it buys. Last year, Gerber:
  • spearheaded a U SDA grant with the goal
    of eliminating prophylactic use of OP
    and carbamate insecticides on sweet
  • conducted apple insect pest control
    research and on-farm demonstrations;
  • collaborated on research to develop a
    sustainable organic peach production
  • fostered adoption by two-thirds of their
    Midwest carrot growers of a disease
    forecasting system that eliminated,
    on average, three fungicide applica-
                                   Page 15

                                                    GOVERNMENT  SECTOR
                          Sector Leader:
    The Government Sector represents
federal, state, county and tribal organiza-
tions that directly or indirectly support
programs in pesticide risk reduction,
integrated pest management, and environ-
mental stewardship. Though diverse in their
various responsibilities,
these organizations find
common ground in
seeking and applying
safer tools for manag-
ing in sect, weed, and
microbial pests.
Nationwide, govern-
mental organizations
exert a huge influence
on how pesticides are
used in agricultural,
                                                  Governmental organizations are
                                              empowered and directed by statute and
                                              charter to protect and improve human
                                              health and environment. However, in
                                              establishinggoals, they must negotiate with
                                              diverse stakeholders and seek practical
   commercial, and
   residential settings, and
   PESP members are leading the way with a
   multitude of innovative and practical
   initiatives to reduce pesticide risks.
       The U.S. Department ofDefense's
   Armed Forces Pest Management Board, a
   Charter Partner in PESP, and the Bay Area
   Stormwater Management Agencies Associa-
   tion of C alifornia have the longest tenure in
   this sector, datingback to 1995. Both
   agencies are truly innovative and have
   effected positive change far beyond their
   specific mandates.
       This year, the Southern Regional IPM
   Center joined PESP. There are four regional
   IPM centers funded by USDA. The centers
   work to identify and resolve pest manage-
   ment issues, prioritize pest management
   efforts, develop pest management strategic
   plans, and coordinate pest management
   issues on a regional basis based on the
   National IPM Roadmap.  EPA participates
   in the four regional IPM centers steering
   committees, advisory committees and
   workgroups and encourages joint activities
   by regions
   and IPM
   This effort is
   working and
   will be
   and expanded
   in 2005.

Page 16
                            Bay Area Stormw ater Management Agencies A ssoc.
                            Guy ahoga County Board of Health
                            Griggs County (ND) 319 Water Quality Project
                            Maine Integrated Pest Management Council
                            Maryland Department of Agriculture
                            Sarasota County Government Public Works
                            Summit Co.(OH) Combined General Health Distr. Katie Hall
                            U.S. Department of Defense                      Glenn Williams
                            U.S. PublicHealth Service                          to be assigned
                            Washington State Department of Agriculture         Glenn Williams
                              Steve Hopkins
                              to be assigned
                              Katie Hall
                              Anne Ball
                              to be assigned
                              to be assigned

outcomes that benefit their respective
constituents and communities. These
organizations must understand how to use
pesticides in way s that reduce risks from
pests and pesticides and to adopt IPM
approaches to pest management that work
in particular, site-specific environments.
    For example, a county or municipality
may need to control mosquitoes and other
disease vectors effectively while adopting
reduced-pesticide-risk strategies that protect
public health. States and counties in
agricultural areas must find way s to reduce
the impacts of pesticide and nutrients on
stream s, rivers, and w atersheds while
ensuring a heal thy and plentiful food
    Urban and suburban governments are
constantly challenged to provide timely
educational outreach to the public on IPM
and safer pest management practices in
schools and in the home. In addition,
organizations in this sector strive to achieve
their pest management goals at a time when
           federal and state fun ding is
               PESP members are
           recognized leaders in their
           respective areas of action and are
           findingnew ways to handle
           these challenges. For its part,
           EPA is coordinating and
           sharinginformation on new
           approaches and technologies for
           PESP members.
Bay Area Stormwater Management
   Agencies Association (BASMAA)is a
   consortium of seven San Francisco Bay
   Areamunicipal storm water programs
   that work to identify and prevent
   negative imp acts to surface waters and
                  sediments caused by
                  pesticides used in urban
                  areas within the
                  watershed. In 2004,
                  BASMAA reported the
                  following activities:
                  • expanded the 0 ur Water
                  • included distributors,
                  retailers and landscape
                  centers in a series of
                  educational and outreach
  • provided extensive training and certifica-
    tion to vendors and retailers;
  • developed and distributed point of sale
    educational materials and TV and radio
    media spots to educate the public in safe
    use practices;
  • developed and implemented objective
    measures, in eluding surveys, sales data
    and water quality monitoring to assess
    the success of the program.

U.S. Department of Defense Armed
   Forces Pest Management Board
   (AFPMB) coordinates pest management
   efforts for the uniformed services and
   identifies and responds to pest
   management issues that could affect
   military personnel stationed anywhere in
   the world.  AFPMB is a charter member
   of PESP, a 2004 PESP Champion and a
   major innovator in pest management
   practices throughout the country. In
   2004, AFPMP reported progress on the
   following activities:
  • developed and deployed real time test kits
    that determine if particular mosquito
    populations carry disease agents;
  • continued research in to spray technology
    that may make it possible for a 50% or
    better per-acre reduction in active
  • applied the results of its West Nile Virus
    Program to help communities in
    Northern Virginiadeal with this

  • ensured that 100% of DoD installations
    have current pest management plans;
  • continued the reduction of the amount
    ofpesticide applied annually on DoD
  • required appropriate certification for all
    DoD installation pesticide applicators.

CuyahogaCounty (Ohio) District Board
   of Health administers programs to
   protect the population from harm and
   illness that arise from adverse
   environmental factors. Programs include
   food protection, solid waste
   management, mosquito control, rodent
   control, private water systems, home
   care, and the prevention of child lead
   poisoning. Their strategy focuses
   particularly on vector-borne diseases.

GriggsCounty (North Dakota)319
   Water Quality Project Project addresses
   the control ofnon-point source
   pollution and the improvement of the
   quality of waters within the Sheyenne
   River and Bald Hill Creek watersheds. In
   2004, Griggs Co. reported the following
  • continued its integrated crop manage-
    ment program which provides advice to
    crop consultants, soil testing, and advice
    on nutrient and pesticide management
  • conducted a GIS/GPS pilot project on
    site-specific, precision application of
    pesticides and fertilizers in lieu of
    broadcast applications;
  • encouraged the use of feedlot waste
    management systems to isolate feedlot
    runoff, prescribed grazing systems that
    use vegetation in pastures to filter
    runoff and water sources isolated from
    natural water courses, and conducted
    water quality monitoringto assess the
    effectiveness of their non-point source
    protection programs.

Maryland Department of Agriculture, a
   2002 PESP Champio n and a leader in IPM
   outreach, oversees amultifaceted
   program on IPM, organic, and
   biocontrol techniques to reduce pesticide
   risk in vegetable farming.  The MDA
   conducts research and demonstration
   and assists in the use of beneficial insects
   that prey on caterpillar grain pests such as
   corn ear worm and fall army worm. They
   maintain an IPM directory and website
   which provides information on least-
   toxic control methods and IPM tips for

SarasotaCounty (Florida) Government
   Public Worksprovides a focus on
   prevention and suppression ofpest
   problems while apply ing methods which
   have aminimum impact on human
   health, nontarget organisms, the
   environment, and groundwater. It
   works to reduce the use of traditional
   synthetic chemicals by utilizing IPM
   principles of monitoring, mechanical
   controls, and the use of biopesticides.

U.S. Centers for Disease Control and
   Prevention's Outreach Program on
   Human Health has demonstrated its
   commitment to IPM and a desire to
   reduce the use of chemical pesticides and
   their associated risks to human health
   and the environment. Through its
   Public Health TrainingNetwork, the
   Centers conduct trainingprograms and
   maintains information on its websites.
     The CDC Office of Health and Safety
   has an informed discussion of IPM in a
   research facility in Biosafety in
   Microbiological and Biomedical
   Laboratories which is available on the
   web.  Its National Center for
   Environmental Health maintains a
   website focused on health incidents in
   the cruise ship industry which includes a
   remarkably thorough discussion of all
   phases of IPM aboard sea-goingvessels.

Washington State Department of
   Agriculture serves as the lead for
   Washington's Interagency Integrated Pest
   Management Coordinating Committee.
   The committee is comprised of IPM
   coordinators form all state institutions
   of higher education and all state agencies
   with pest management responsibilities.

Summit County (Ohio) Health
   Department, new to PESP in 2004, is
   responsible for the protection and
   promotion of the community's health.
   It serves people of all ages in Summit
   County, which includes ten townships,
   nine villages and the cities of Guy ahoga
   Falls, Fairlawn, Green, Hudson,
   Macedonia, Munroe Falls, Stow,
   Tallmadge and Twinsburg
     The mission of the Summit County
   Health Department is to protect and
   promote the health of the entire
   community through programs and
   activities designed to  address the safety,
   health, and well beingof the people who
   live in  Summit County. Through its
   programs and activities, the department
   seeks to create a healthful environment
   and insure the accessibility of health
   services to all.
                                                                                                                          Page 17

       This sector consists of
   organizations with activities
   related to landscaping and turf
   on golf courses, residential/
   commercial properties, and
   public spaces.  Members are
   engaged in all aspects of
   growing, selling, installing, and
   maintaining landscape plants
   and flowers.
       Golf courses are well
   represented in this sector, as are
   companies and organizations
   that represent the consumer/
   homeowner and landscaping
       In the U.S., there are approximately
   13,000 golf courses representing 1.2
   million acres and up to 85 million
   households representing 17 million acres
   of residential turf. When recreational,
   commercial, and institutional areas are
   accounted for, total turf in urban areas is
   estimated at around 30 million acres.
       Accordingto the 1998 and 1999
   Pesticide In dustry Sales an d Usage Repo rt, up
   to 85 million pounds of pesticide active
   ingredient were applied by consumers for
   residential pest control while close to 15
   million pounds of pesticide active
   ingredient were professionally applied to
   golf courses.
       Close to 75% of lawn and garden
   pesticides and  fertilizers are purchased  at
   either a discount/mass merchandiser or
   home improvement center. Nearly 20%
   are purchased at a lawn and garden center
   or hardware store.
       While the use of pesticides on turf
   provides benefits to users, they may also
   pose challenges to both human health and
   the environment.
       A U. S. Geological Survey analysis of20
   major river basins and aquifer systems
   reported that insecticides used around
   homes, gardens, and in commercial and
   public areas were often found in streams at
   levels above water quality guidelines. The
   results of pesticide monitoring of residential
   runoff indicate that the most widely used and
   marketed herbicides and insecticides are
   routinely found in urban runoff in different
   regions of the country.

Page 18
Sector Leader:

  American Nursery and Landscape Association
  Audubon International Cooperative Sanctuary Program
  Center for Resource Management
  Chicago Parks District, Division of Conservatories
  City ofDavis (CA)
  Golf Course Superintendents Association of America
  International Cut Flower Growers
  Organic Golf Maintenance and Design
  Parrot Jungle Island
  Pebble Beach Company
  Professional Lawn C are Association of America
  U.S. Golf Association
               Accordingto EPA's Pesticide Inci-
           dence Data Reporting System, a total of
           31,410 incidents relating to the use of
           pesticides on lawns were reported over the
           period between 1995 to 2002. The major
           categories of incidents were human
           exposures, domestic animal exposures, and
           damage to non-target plants.
               While no severe human incidents were
           reported for either insecticides or herbicides,
           a large percentage of reports were on minor
           incidents involving humans. A smaller
           percentage of reports involved domestic
           animals or non-target plants. Significant
           pesticide exposure to humans and the
           environment can occur because of misuse.
               According to a recent, peer-reviewed
           analysis of outdoor residential pesticide use,
           a sizable number of households apply more
           than recommended doses and treat symp-
           toms of pest problems without suitable
           information about the causes. The analysis
           also states that consumers do not read
           pesticide labels, follow directions, or obtain
           information about precautions and proper
           uses against specific pests.

               PESP members are working to
           address these challenges by:
              • developing reduced risk approaches
                to the pest problems associated with
                turf and ornamental plants;
              • educating the general public and
                industry workers about new technol-
                ogy and methods;
              • setting standards that measure
                environmental achievements.
               Activities and accomplishments of
           sector members in adopting reduced risk
           approaches are provided below.
    Ed Brandt

    Paul Lewis
    Barbara VanTil
    Kathy Seikel
    Barbara VanTil
    Venus Eagle
    Jack Arthur
    Candace Brassard
    Santhin iRamasamy
    Ed Brandt
    Thomas Brennan

American Nursery and Landscape
   Association (ANLA) represents
   members who grow, sell, and install
   landscape plants and related products.
   Members include growers, garden
   centers retailers, horticultural
   distributors, landscape professionals,
   and industry suppliers. Through its
   PESP membership, ANLA works to
   aid the adoption of new and safer
   technologies and practices by its
   member organizations.
Audubon International educates and
   encourages pesticide users to practice IPM
   and promote naturally managed, turf
   grass landscapes that reduce or eliminate
   pesticide use. Theyprovideinformation
   exchange and promotes positive role
   models of those practicing such methods
   to en courage and motivate others. Last
   year, Audubon International:
   • took a leadership role in risk/use
     reduction amongthoselaggingorin
     need of assistance;
   • maintained an electronic library of
     environmental information and fact
     sheets on its Website;
   • conducted amanagedlands survey; and
   • widely distributed its guide to environ-
     mental stewardship.
Brookfield Zoo is a conservation
   organization whose mission is to educate
   people about the environment. The
   grounds department, which is responsible
   for pest control on livingplants, uses pest
   control strategies that provide the least risk
   to plants, people, and animals. The zoo's
   goal is to use less chemicals, especially high
   risk ones, in exterior environments to
   reduce the risk to its visitors. Zoo
   educators talk to visitors about their

   approach, and encourage consumers
   and homeowners to take similar
   approaches when managing pests at
   home.  BrookfieldZoo:
  • developed manuals and trained
    applicators in IPM techniques;
  • maintained files for all chemical applica-
    tions made to the zoo's exterior;
  • utilized an organic lawn care program on
    zoo grounds;
  • maintained a Website on its IPM activiies.
Center for Resource Management, a
   national non-profit organization, founded
   by Robert Redfordin 1981, joined PESP
   in 2004. The Center was formed as a safe
   harbor where business executives,
   environmental leaders, citizens and
   government officials could work out
   environmental problems and conflicts in a
   collaborative setting. CRM initiated both
   the Golf and Environment (1996) and
   Lawns and the Environment (2002)
   Initiatives. Most recently, CRM initiated a
   project to define criteria for organic golf
Chicago Park District, Division of
   Conservatoriesuses biological pesticides
   as alternatives to traditional, chemical
   controls. Of the insects found in
   conservatories, zoo habitats, butterfly
   houses, and related facilities, the great
   majority are members of the order
   Homoptera,  a group with sucking
   mouthparts that includes scale insects,
   whitefly, mealybugs, and aphids. In crops
   such as citrus and avocado, these in sects are
   amongthosemost successfully controlled
   by natural enemies.
City of Davis, California manages nearly 350
   acres of urban landscape (175 acres of
   which is turf), over 250 acres of open space
   area, and over 20,000 public trees. Their
   IPM program was voluntarily established
   in 1989 out of concern for the
   environment and the unique
   interrelationships that exist in public
   spaces.  Their activities focus on reducing
   herbicide use, increasingtrainingin IPM
   techniques for maintenance personnel, and
   increasingpublic education through
   sign age programs.
Golf Course Superintendents Association
   of America (GCSA A) provides
   superintendents with education and
   information that enables them to safely
   and effectively use pesticides in IPM
   programs for golf course maintenance.
   GCSAA presents many  education
   programs (full-day, half-day, online and
   correspondence) on integrated pest
   management, pesticide safety and
   responsible pesticide use in golf course
   management. Additionally, they lead
   and fund a competitive grants program
   that supports applied research to:
   • increase knowledge of the biology of
     turfgrass pests,
     • develop improved cultural systems for
     man aging turf,
     • develop cultural control programs to
     suppress pests, and
     • more carefully define the conditions
     when a pesticide application is most
     effective for controlling a pest.
International Cut Flower Growers
   Association, a2004PESP Champion,
   represents cut flower growers, allied trades,
   and university researchers. The association
   educates growers on practical methods for
   reducingpesticideuse, funds research in
   IPM techniques, conducts ayearly IPM
   survey, and has established a tech direct
   program that provides professional
   consulting to members on topics
   indudingpest control. They arealeaderin
   the application ofbiopesticides and
   biological control through predator release.
   The loss of broad spectrum insecticides
   and the green house environment has
   created both the incentive and
   opportunities for the association.
Organic Golf Maintenance and Design
   (formerly Meligolf) is reducing dependency
   on chemical pesticides in golf course
   maintenance by introducingnew
   biopesticides, establishing tolerable levels
   ofpests activity, and finding products that
   work with smaller amounts of active
   ingredient. Lastyear,Meligolf
   • worked with compost suppliers to
     improve soil and, thereby, use less
     fungicide on greens and tees;
   • evaluated the use of beneficial nematodes
     and biopesticides for insect control;
   • targeted organic golf courses.
Parrot Jungle Island a 14-acre botanical
   theme park in south Florida joined PESP
   in 2004.  Their IPM program
   demonstrates an environmentally-friendly
   approach that produces considerable cost
   The program minimizes the use of
   insecticides and introduced biological
   controls. The success ofthe IPM program
   was based upon their Plant Health Care
   program that utilizes strict control of
   irrigation, park-produced compost,
   constant mulching, and cultivation
   techniques. Through these programs,
   Parrot Jungle Island has:
   • reduced by 75% over last 10 years the
     use of inorganic fertilizers and high
    nitrogen products on the grounds;
  • reduced water use for irrigation,
    thereby minimizing nutrient leaching
    and fungal problems; and
  • reduced or eliminated pesticide
    spraying for insects and mites by
    utilizing a proactive pruning schedule
    for plants which reduces available
    nutrients for insect invasions.
Pebble Beach Company manages golf
   courses, open spaces, resorts, and
   residential communities. A leader in the
   use of innovative IPM techniques for golf
   courses and resorts, Pebble Beach also has
   an educational program to identify
   alternatives to chemicals in the control of
   household and garden pests. Pebble
  • monitors runoff for impairment to water
    quality and found contaminants below
    levels ofconcern;
  • produces consumer information such as
    brochures and fact sheets;
  • uses a state ofthe art treatment system
    and rack contaminants for load/mix/
    wash/rinsate equipment to reduce
    pesticide spills;
  • supports research on pitch canker disease
    of Monterey pine trees;
  • uses no mow zones and native vegeta-
    tion in open spaces;
  • maintains a detailed Web page on
    environmental stewardship.
Professional Lawn Care Association of
   America strives to reduce pesticide risk to
   the environment and applicators through
   its IPM programs and best management
   practices (BMPs). PLCAA educates lawn/
   landscape companies on IPM practices and
   BMPs and encourages them to educate
   their customers about these practices. The
   goal is to help urban, suburban  and rural
   homeowners understand lawn and
   landscape management systems and
   technologies that conserve and protect
   valuable natural resources (water, soil,
   atmosphere, and wildlife habitat) thus
   protectingthe environment and human
   health. At the same time, they strive to
   help them understand the environmental
   and economic benefits of caring for their
   own lawns and landscapes.
United States G olf Association, the
   national governingbody of golf since its
   formation in 1894, is a non-pro fit
   organization run by golfers for the benefit
   ofgolfers. The association sponsors
   programs that benefit every one who plays
   the game. These essential services affect all
   golfers, whether they are amateurs or
   professionals, public-or private-course
   players.^   _  4_    A    _. Page 19

                                               N ON-TREE FRUITS SECTOR
    This sector includes 14 members
representing the grape (ineluding table
grapes, wine grapes and raisins), melon,
cranberry, pineapple, and banana industries,
a company focused on promoting soil
health, and a government-sponsored area
wide fruit fly management program.
    Much of the fruit production repre-
sented by members of this sector originates
in California, Oregon and Hawaii.  Collec-
tively, this sector
                      Sector Leader:
                                               Workbook, as well as for continuing
                                               innovations in the assessment and imple-
                                               mentation of sustainable winegrowing
                                                   The Central Coast Vineyard Team was
                                               recognized for its Positive Points System
                                               which serves as the foundation of a
                                               program aimed at grower self-assessment,
                                               education and adoption of a reduced risk
                                               systems approach to vineyard management;
                                               and for their Biologically Integrated
                                               Farming System project.
                    1 researched alternatives to OP'sand
                     carbamates for control ofwhiteflies, flea
                     beetles, and aphids; and
                    1 evaluated vine decline control strategies
                     for possible carry-over to other soil-
                     borne pathogens (e.g., Fusarium,
   represents appro xi-
   m ately 11.5 million
   acres treated with
   pesticides, with
   about 4% of these
   acres treated with
   biopesticides, and an
   additional 4%
   treated with other
   pesticide products.
   These figures are
   comparable with the
   adoption rate for
   other reduced-risk
   pesticides nationally.
       A major
   challenge that all members of this sector
   share is the need for research and demon-
   strations on effective, reduced-risk pest
   management practices.
       A 4% adoption rate for biopesticides as
   compared to conventional alternatives is a
   clear indicator of the room for growth in
   this area.  Increasing the use of biologically-
   based pest management practices is a
   challenge shared by EPA, as well as the
       The Agency  recognizes the value of
   field demonstrations of promising
   alternatives as a means to reduce barriers to
   the adoption of biopesticides and other
   reduced risk alternatives.
       Collaborative voluntary efforts such as
   those represented in PESP promise to be a
   potent means to this end.
       This year, the Lodi-Woodbridge
   Winegrape Commission was recognized as a
   PESP Champion for the third consecutive
   year. Their recognition was based on their
   leadership role in developing a state-wide
   Co de of Sustain able Win egro iv ing Practices,
   modeled after the Lodi Winegrower's

Page 20
                       California Melon Research Advisory Board
                       Central Coast Vineyard Team
                       Cranberry Institute
                       Hawaii Area Wide Fruit Fly Pest Mgt. Program
                       Hawaii Banana Industry Association
                       Highlands Soil & Water
                       Lake County (CA) Winegrape Commission
                       Lodi-Woodbridge Wine Grape Commission
                       Low Input Viticulture and Enology of Oregon
                       National Grape Cooperative, Inc.
                       Pineapple Growers Association ofHawaii
                       Rainforest Alliance-ECO o.k. Program
                       Sonoma County Grape Growers Association
                       Sun-Maid Growers of California
Diana Home

Julie Heflin
Michael McDavit
Stephen Schaible
Kevin Sweeney
Julie Heflin
Diana Home
Angela Gonzales
Kathleen Knox
Mik a Hunter
to be assigned
Driss Benmhend
Regina Langton
Barbara Madden


                                            SECTOR MEMBERS AND ACTIVITIES
                                                Sector share common goals and most
                                            have worked to reduce pesticide risk
                                            through the followingkinds of activities:
                                              • grower education, training, and outreach;
                                              • programs to promote adoption of a code
                                                of sustainable agricultural practices;
                                              • self-assessment, positive point and
                                                certification programs to track progress
                                                and document adherence to sustainable
                                                practices code;
                                              • adoption of alternatives to organophos-
                                                phate and carbamate insecticides, and
                                                reduced reliance on conventional
                                                pesticides, in general.
                                            California Melon Research Advisory
                                               Board funds IPM and other reduced-
                                               risk research programs that are regional in
                                               scope for melon growers and handlers,
                                               and their pest control advisors. The
                                               research program attempts to dearly
                                               identify economic, environmental, and/
                                               or social benefits.  In 2004, the board:
                                              • updated crop pro file and pest manage-
                                                ment strategic plans for melons which
                                                focused on action items for regulatory
                                                research and grower education;
Central Coast Vineyard Team reduces
   health and environmental risks
   traditionally associated with production
   agriculture through facilitating self-
   assessment, grower to grower outreach
              and education, and field
              demonstration of integrated
              farming practices. The team
              utilizes the Positive Points
              System, a self-assessment
              protocol that is the
              foundation of assessment,
              education and
              implementation. In 2004,
              • held 3 Positive Points
              System sorkshops;
              • increased the number of
              participatinggrowers over
              2.5-fold since 1996;
              • sponsored several tailgate
    meetings with over 250 attendees to
    demonstrate specific practices, such as
    pest identification, canopy management,
    and non-point source pollution
    prevention; and
  • developed and distributed quarterly
    newsletters to over 5000 readers,
    completed major website revision, and
    released a Spanish version of the
    Positive Points materials.
Cranberry Institute, which represents
   growers in the U.S. and Canada, is
   aggressively pursuing alternatives to
   organophosphate and carbamate
   insecticides and enhancing existing IPM
   programs through research and grower
   education. In 2004, the Institute:
  • finalized IPM manuals for Canada and
    made them available to growers;
  • worked with IR4to achieve registrations
    of reduced-risk products; and
  • encouraged growers to shift to newly
    registered reduced-risk alternatives to
Hawaii Banana Industry Association is
   committed to increasing grower
   awareness and adoption of IPM by
   developing a positive point system and

   certification program for growers in
   conjunction with the University of
Hawaii Area Fruit Fly Pest Management
   Program, a collaborative effort involving
   USDA, Hawaii Department of
   Agriculture, and University of Hawaii, is
   aimed at designing and implementing an
   area-wide IPM program for fruit fly
Highlands Soil and Water is dedicated to
   the premise that sustainable reductions
   in pesticide use can be achieved by
   adopting a production model that
   focuses on establishing and maintaining
   a healthy and functioning soil food web.
   In 2004, Highlands:
   • established field trials using compost teas
    and organically based soil amendments
    in lettuce andwinegrapesinCalifornia;
  • measured the biological profile of healthy
    soils and demonstrated the impacts of
    current agricultural practices on soil
Lake County Winegrape Commission, a
   new PESP member, has instituted a
   program for member growers to assess
   the sustainability of their vineyard
   operations, usingthe Code of Sustainable
   Win egrowing Practices SelfAssessm ent
   WorkbooktecenAj adopted state-wide.
   The commission has held 26 self-
   assessment workshops for over 100
   participants, representing over 70%of
   county growers and 6,000 acres.
Lodi-Woodbridge Winegrape
   Commission has along-term approach
   to pesticide risk reduction through
   education and outreach, field
   implementation, and area-wide self
   assessment programs for growers
   utilizing a positive point system for
   encouraging sustainable viticultural
   practices. In 2004, the commission:
   • held 10 workbook sessions attended
    by 78 growers who farm 35% of
    district vineyards, evaluating the
    implementation of sustainable
    winegrowing practices;
  • created an on-line version of their
    Winegrower's Workbook;
  • establishing a certification program for
    growers achievingthe requisite number
    of points which rank the level of
    sustainability of farmingpractices;
  • with Protected Harvest, developed a
    strategy fordistributingcertified
    sustainably grown winegrapes; and
  • worked to adapt a risk indicator model
    for assessingpesticide impacts used in
    Lodi-Woodbridge viney ards and that can
    be used in sustainable farmingproduc-
    tion standards and certification.
Low Input Viticulture and Enology of
   Oregon (LIVE) offers vineyards an
   international certification in sustainable
   agriculture utilizing apositiv epointsystem.
   This certification program also features a
   flexible systems approach that allows
   growers to use biologically-based
   options best suited to their own
   growing conditions. Last year, LIVE:
  • revised and upgraded self-evaluation
    score sheet, and distributed to all
  • worked to create an internal evaluation
    tool to track individual member progress
    in pesticide use reduction;
  • consolidated in to new Oregon Wine
    Board to enhance coordination with the
    Oregon Winegrowers Association and
    Oregon Wine Advisory Board; and
  • upgraded LIVE Website to include
    interactive forum, trainingprogram, and
    access to all forms
National Grape Cooperative, Inc. seeks
   to produce the highest quality grapes in
   an environmentally sustainable manner,
   reduce pesticides in finished products,
   vineyards, and the surrounding
   environment, and support research to
   enhance environmental protection and
   food safety. In 2004, the cooperative:
  • disseminated recommendations to
    growers encouraginguseofbiopesticide
    alternatives to conventional fungicides;
  • increased scouting for grape berry moth
    and use of cultural alternatives, resulting
    in decreased use of conventional
    insecticide use;
  • distributed the NwPof/feG»z^/or IPM
    Scouting to all 1,400 of its members; and
  • continued funding research on biological
    control alternatives and timingof spray
Pineapple Growers Association of
   Hawaii is using an integrated
   approach to reduce specific pesticide
   uses, worker exposure, and
   environmental risk that includes IPM
   practices, a herbicide management
   plan, use of cover crops, and crop
   improvement through biotechnology
   and improved application methods.
Rainforest  Alliance - ECO  o.k.
   Program plans to transform
   environmental and social  conditions
   in tropical agriculture through a
   conservation certification program
   for banana, coffee, cocoa, sugar cane,
   and citrus growers. This program
   encourages the adoption of IPM
   practices to reduce pesticide risks to
   humans and ecosystems.
Sonoma County Grape Growers of
   California is implementing the Code
   of Sustainable Wine Growing self-
   assessment program with their
   growers.  In 2004they:
  • reported that usage of nine pesticides
    identified for transition to lower risk
    alternatives declined for the third
    consecutive year, with a cumulative
    35% reduction since 1999;
  • held 4 IPM grower meetings at demon-
    stration vineyards with an average of 93
  • initiated an Organic Producers Group
    with 37 growers attending four
  • held multiple field day s attended by over
    300 growers;
  • launched Sonoma County Employee
    Development program and held
    Spanish-language workshops for over
    100 attendees on  a number of topics
    indudingerosion control, vine mealy-
    bugidentification and management
    strategies, and weed identification and
    control; and
  • held grower evaluation workshops using
    the Code of Sustainable Winegrowing and
    received self-assessments from 200
    vineyard owners/managers representing
    50%of Sonoma County grape acres.
Sun-Maid G rower s of C alifornia educate
   growers on viney ardmonitoring
   techniques, the safe and effective use of
   spray materials, and the selection of
   pesticides that are least likely to disrupt
   beneficial organisms. In 2004, Sun-Maid:
  • promoted dried-on-the-vine raisin
    production, which reduces tillage, dust
    and particulate production;
  • educated growers on the use of the of
    PestCast weather station system to
    reduce pesticide use;
  • held a seminar for 166 attendees on
    timingofpowdery mildew treatments,
    resultingin reduced usage of sulfur;
  • sponsored mite field days to educate
    growers on pest and beneficial insect
    identification; and
  • increasingly relied on biopesticides and
    organic certified products in lieu of
    conventional alternatives.
                                  Page 21

                                                        ORGANIC SECTOR
       This new sector represents organic
   grower groups and organizations that wish
   to partner with EPA to address issues
   directly impacting organic agriculture.
       There are more than 12,000 organic
   farmers in the United States, with that
   number increasingup to 12%every year. In
   North America, organic crop land nearly
   tripled from 1997-2003, with 3.7million
   acres dedicated to organic production.
       The U.S. organic market is projected to
   reach a value of $30.7 billion by 2007, with a
   five-year compound annual growth rate of
   21.4% between 2002  and 2007, compared to
   a 21.2% rate between 1997 and 2002.
       However, the overall adoption level is
   still less than 1%, and significantly increasing
   that number remains a long-term challenge
   for the industry.
   Sector Leader:

   Organic Materials Review Institute
   Organic Trade Association
     Organic food producers use
materials and methods that minimize
negative impacts on the environment and
are important as drivers for reduced risk
and more environmentally sustainable
approaches to agricultural production.
Most producers follow  standards leading
to certification under the USD A
National Organic Standards Program.
     In 2004, EPA worked to identify
grower groups, non-profit organizations,
        Diana Home

        Robert Torla
        Diana Home

trade associations, universities and other
institutions that utilize, advocate, or
support organic cropping sy stem s for
membership in the Organic Sector.
     Two new members were recruited and
three additional applications are under
     EPA is working with its new members
to provide a forum for the identification of
reduced-risk pest management tactics
employed in organic production systems
that can be transferred successfully to
conventional agriculture.
                                                      RlGHTS-OF-WAY SECTOR
       TheRights-of-Way (ROW) Sector is
   composed of companies in the electric utility
   industry that transmit electrical power over
   high voltage powerlines. Each day, over
   10,000 power plants deliver electricity to
   customers over 157,000 miles of high
   voltage electric transmission lines to 131
   million customers.
       RO Ws and the facilities that support
   them are sited on hundreds of million of
   acres in the U.S. and include towers for the
   transmission lines, relay facilities, fences and
   gates, bridges, and access roads. Depending
   on their land holdings, ROW companies
   may manage geological features near their
   facilities, such as lakes, ponds, rivers,
   streams, public and private water supplies,
   wetlands, agricultural areas, and critical
   wildlife and plant habitat.
       The National Academy of Sciences has
   called America's electric system "the supreme
   engineering achievement of the 20th
   Century."The ability ofthis system to
   function reliably and provide abundant,
   accessible and affordable electricity is a
   cornerstone of the American economy.
       Currently, there are 30 PESP members
   in the sector. They support programs in
   pollution prevention, pesticide risk reduc-
   tion, IPM/integrated vegetation manage-
   ment (TVM) and environmental steward-
   ship in the maintenance of RO Ws.
       A principal goal of these companies is
   safe, reliable, and cost-effective transmission
   of electric power to customers with minimal
Page 22
adverse impacts on human health and
the environment from the use of herbi-
cides. IVM effectively applied to ROW
vegetation is a key to achieving this goal.
     Edison Electric Institute (EEI) is the
association of U.S. shareholder-owned
electric companies, international
affiliates and industry  associates
worldwide. EEFs U.S. members serve
more than 90% of the ultimate customers
in the shareholder-owned segment of the
industry, and nearly 70% of all electric
utility ultimate customers in the nation.
Sector Leader:
  Aqumix, Inc.
  Central Vermont Public Service Corporation
  Central Virginia Electric Cooperative
  Edison Electric Institute (and its members)
     Allegheny Power
     American Electric Power Service Corporation
     Arizona Public Service
     Central Maine Power Company
     Duke Power Company
     Hawaiian Electric Company
     National Grid
     New York State Gas & Electric
     IN ortheast U tilities
     Northern Indiana Public Service Company
     Pennsylvania Power & Light
     Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc.
     Wisconsin Public Service Corporation
  Energy Association of Pennsylvania
  New York Power Authority
  Pacific Gas & Electric
  Pennsylvania Rural Electric Association
  Tennessee Valley Authority
  VA, MD, & DE Association of Electric Cooperatives
  Vegetation Managers, Inc.
  Washington State Department of Transportation
        Glenn Williams   703-308-8287
        Sherry Click         703-308-7035
        to be assigned
        to be assigned
       Jim Downing        703-308-9071

        Carol Frazer         703-308-8810
        Rosemary Biancardi  703-308-8145
       Carol Frazer
       Sherry Click
       Sherry Click
       Carol Frazer
       Rosemary Biancardi
       Glenn Williams
       Sherry Click
       Rosemary Biancardi
       Rosemary Biancardi
       to be assigned
       to be assigned
       Glenn Williams
       Mark Corbin
       to be assigned
       to be assigned
       to be assigned
       Rosemary Biancardi
       Rosemary Biancardi
       Alan Dixon

    EEI, a Charter Partner in PESP,
developed an IVM Task Force, which
spearheaded the definition and adoption of
FVM for its members. This effort placed
EEI at the center of PESP's early efforts to
reduce adverse risks and impacts associated
with herbicides used in maintaining
    In 1999/2000, EEI agreed to serve as
an umbrella for its member companies who
volunteered to join PESP -16 companies
    As we enter the 21st Century, rapid
evolution of electric energy demands, lack
of investment in developingnew electricity
transmission facilities, and transition to an
increasingly wired, market-based
economy are severely straining electrical
transmission in the United States.
    These realities create needs for rapidly
improving and modernizing the electricity
transmission grid in the United States.
With these improvements, the importance
of effective, integrated vegetation manage-
ment on utility rights-of-w ay must
increase. The transmission of reliable
electric power transmission and environ-
mental stewardship can positively support
each other. It is in this realm that PESP
seeks to have impact with its ROW partners.
    The March, 2004, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC) report
recommended adoptingindustry-wide IVM
for rights-of-way and suggested that each
of the utility companies consider direct
involvement with PESP. The report
described PESP participation as a
baseline indicator of a competent IVM
    PESP's commitment to the wire
^one-border ^pne practice of IVM is
the basis for FERC's recommenda-
tion. The effectiveness of wire zone-
border zone is proven for reducing
and/or eliminating power outages
related to vegetation. Moreover, it
promotes the transition of ROWs to
bio-or cultural control by establish-
ing desirable low-growing vegetation
which out competes tall growing
species. This minimizes adverse
environmental impacts, provides
wildlife habitat, and reduces economic
costs for ROW maintenance.
    Assuring that the practice of IVM
appropriately maintains ROWs for
reliable transmission of power while
minimizing health and environmental
impacts is a major challenge of PESP for
the foreseeable future. By means of its
voluntary partnership, PESP seeks to be
a positive influence in the adoption of
IVM practices that improve transmission
reliability while assuring environmental
    With  regard to federal agencies,
inconsistencies in vegetation manage-
ment requirements and work approval
processes across agencies have emerged
as a significant issue impacting ROW
management.  Consequently, PESP
supports EEFs effort to establish a
memorandum of understanding with
land-holding federal agencies to achieve
     demonstrated outstanding
     achievement in promoting IVM and
     pollution prevention on its electric
     power transmission right-of-ways.
     We commended Aquila for its use
     of risk screening factors in selecting
     less risky herbicide products for its
     IVM program, its growing reliance
     on low volume, hand pumped
     basal, foliar and cut/treat selective
     applications to transition ROWs to
     greater bio- or cultural control and
     less chemical applications, and its
     commitment to reporting annual
     usage data from its tracking
     database  on specific herbicide
     products to monitor transition.
New York Power Authority (NYPA):
   demonstrated outstanding
   achievement in promoting integrated
   vegetation management and pollution
   prevention on its electric power
   transmission right-of-ways. In its
   demonstration that FVM works,
   NYPA is second to none.
     We commend NYPA for its many
   accomplishments supporting the
   transition of ROWs to greater bio- or
   cultural control, including:
   completing and implementing its
   innovative GIS mapping and data
   collection program for IVM, its
   reliance upon selective cut stump
   treatment and low volume foliar
   herbicide applications to reduce
   herbicide application and protect
   non-targets (over 90% of treated
   acres), its use of percent acres treated
   indexed to vegetation management
   techniques to monitor transition of
   ROW (less than 5% selective high
   volume foliar application using
   picloram and triclopyr), its use of a
   tree stem density index to monitor
   transition of ROW (medium and high
   density indices reduced by 75%), its
   research and demonstration programs
   and support of the Environmen tal
   Co ncerns in Rights-of-Way Man agent en t
   symposia, and its notification of
   ROW landowners program. NYPA
   is an industry leader among PESP
   members in the ROW sector.
    PESP works with its members to
help them develop IVM strategies and
annually report their results. PESP
encourages members of this sector to
                                                                                               (Continued on p 24)
                                                                                                                      Page 23

  (Rights-of-\Afay - from p. 23)
                             adopt new
                             and to share
                             across the
                                 In 2004,
  improving the monitoring of vegetation
  growth, identifying sensitive land and
  water areas, targeting and communicat-
  ingvegetation management actions, and
  capturing environmental impacts of
  vegetation management actions once
  they are taken. Reports on progress
  made must be communicated to the
  industry and the public in  a way that is
  meaningful and influential.
  Edison Electric Institute provides
     vegetation management programs to
     ensure public andworker safety and
     reliability of service. In 2004, EEI
     reported the following activities:
     • promoted an IVM approach to vegeta-
       tion control on electric RO Ws;
     • established the PESP strategy for electric
       utilities as the accepted strategy for
       vegetation management on power lines
       that cross federal lands throughout the
       United States;
     • advocated acceptance of the PESP strategy
       and the utility ROW vegetation manage-
       ment standards being developed in the
       response to the August 14,2003,
     • increased the number of utilities
       operatingunder the EEI PESP Strategy
      The following EEFs affiliates
  practice IVM and accept EEI's IVM
  umbrella strategy and report:
     Allegheny Power
     American Electric Power Service
     Arizona Public Service
     Duke Power Company
     Energy Association of Pennsylvania
     Hawaiian Electric Company
     New York State Electric & Gas
     Northern Indiana Public Service
     Pennsylvania Power & Light
     Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc.
     Wisconsin Public Service Corporation
Page 24
    The following EEI affiliates pre-
pared their own 2004 PESP strategies and
annual reports:
Aquila reported the following activities:
  • trained subcontractors on IVM;
  • accurately tracked and measured
    herbicide use, application rates, types
    ofherbicides, frequency of treat-
    ments, usage per acre, comparative
    toxicity, brush densities, and cus-
    tomer concerns;
  • utilized low volume foliar or basal
    applications when herbicides were
  • maintained a transmission line
    database developed in 2002.
Central  Maine Power Company
   reported the following activities:
  • practiced IVM to selectively control
    tree species capable of interfering
    with electrical conductors and
  • maintained herbicide free buffers near
    streams, ponds, reservoirs, and wells;
  • selected herbicides that are reduced-
    risk  products;
  • incorporated herbicide and environ-
    mental operations training as part of
    the Center Maine program.
National Grid followed the EEI strategy
   and reported the following activities:
  • promoted an integrated pest (vegeta-
    tion) management approach for
    vegetation control on electric rights-
  •  continue to work with federal
    agencies such as the U.S. Forest
    Service, Bureau of Land Management,
    and  Fish & Wildlife Service to
    establish PESP as the accepted
    strategy formanagingutility rights-of-
    way on federal public lands;
  • advocated acceptance of
    the PESP strategy in the
    utility ROW vegetation
    management standards
    being developed in
    response to the August
    14,2003, Blackout;
  • increase the number of
    utilities operating under
    the EEI PESP Strategy
    um brella.
Northeast Utilities reported the
   following activities:
  • established the cyclical herbicide
    tracking database to evaluate the
    reduction in herbicide application
    volumes (on a pounds of active
    ingredient per acre basis);
  • initiated wildlife surveys on rights-of-
    way under various maintenance
    programs to evaluate the habitat
    potential for a variety of wildlife
    species (birds and butterflies) with a
    focus on threatened or endangered
  • continued with efforts to implement
    an IVM program in New Hampshire.

    The following five PESP members
(not affiliated with EEI) submitted

Central Vermont  Public Service
   Corporation is a new PESP member
   and reported the following activities:
  • conducted pesticide applicator's safety and
    training sessions;
  • promoted IVM approach within its
  • stump and basal applications were
    performed behind mechanical means of
    vegetation management.

New York Power Authority reported
   the following activities:
  • continued the emphasis on the low
    volume foliar application ofherbi-
  • fully deployed newly completed GIS
    for IVM program implementation
    over the entire transmission system
    in 2004;
  • continued to sponsor ROW research
    on IVM methods, effectiveness and
    environmental impacts;

  • participated in the statewide training
    of ROW certified pesticide applica-
Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E)
   reported the following activities:
  • implemented an integrated approach
    to vegetation management on PG&E
    electric ROWs;
  • promoted best management practices
    (BMPs) for vegetation management
    for electric transmission ROWs;
  • developed partnerships with stakehold-
    ers (governmental agencies and private
    organizations, as well as individual
    landowners) to improve wildlife habitat
    and reduce exotic plant species on electric
    ROWs through the use of IVM;
  • promoted the use of the Wire Zone/
    Border Zone approach to vegetation
    management along electric transmis-
    sion ROWs.
VA, MD & DE Association of
   Electric Cooperatives reported the
   following activities:
  • promoted an integrated pest (vegetation)
    Management approach for the control
    of incompatible vegetation on electric
    utility rights-of-way;
  • advanced the use of selective herbicide
    applications (i.e., backpack applications)
    to control only tall-growingwoody
    species that may impact the safety and
    reliability of the electric system;
  • encouraged the selection of specific
    herbicides that will provide adequate
    control of the undesirable vegetation
    with the lowest application rates. Only
    herbicides havingminimal risks to non-
    target plants, animals, and humans were
    used in vegetation management
  • requiredlicensedprofessional applicators
    to use only refillable/returnable
    containers with closed system.
Vegetation Managers, Inc. reported
   the following activities:
  • conducted preplanning of ROW
    management to form the basis for
    reductions in herbicide load on the
  • continued to update training, registra-
    tion and licensing of employees with
    the Pennsylvania Department of
  • continued equipment modification
    for closed system transfer of herbi-
    cide materials.
                                  SCHOOLS SECTOR
       The sector includes universities
   developing school and day care IPM training
   programs, school districts launching IPM
   school pilot programs, and non-profit
   organizations developing IPM certification
   programs for school systems to adopt.  All
   of our members focus on outreach and
   education for safer school environments.
       Last year, over 5 million children
   benefited positively from IPM school
   projects developed or coordinated by PESP
   members and through  EPA's Pesticides
schools reduced pesticide applications
and pest management costs by over 90%.
By furthering IPM in schools, these
members also contributed to pesticide
safety and awareness at home.
    Enrollment in our public elemen-
tary and secondary school continues to
increase. An expected 48 million
students will be enrolled in our public
school systems by 2004.
Sector Leader:
  Auburn University-Dept. of Entomology & Plant Pathology
  IPM Institute of North America, Inc.
  Kyrene Elementary School
  Monroe County School Corporation
  New York City Board of Education
  Southwest School IPM Technical Resource Center
  University of Florida Cooperative Extension Service
             Sherry Click
             Clara Fuentes
             Sherry Glick
             Mary Grisier
             Sherry Glick
             Michael Glikes
             Sarah Winfield
             Deborah H artman

   and Schools Initiative.  Over 53 districts
   in Michigan are in the process of being
   certified using the IPM Star Program
   along with 10 other districts nationally.
   Another effective IPM program based on
   a model developed by Monroe County,
   Indiana, continues to be adopted
   throughout the country.  This model has
   been launched throughout Florida
   schools and continues to spark interest
   in other states. The coalition in Arizona
   continues to grow now including several
   Native American tribal schools.
       IPM programs are resulting in
   measurable reductions in the use and
   risk of pesticides. For example, member
    Significant attention is being focused
on pesticide risk to children. The Food
Quality Protection Act of 1996 directed
EPA to re-examine risks to children and
set new standards incorporating poten-
tial cumulative exposures to children.
Even though they can be beneficial to
society, pesticides can be  dangerous if
used carelessly and around children.
    According to data collected from
the American Association of Poison
Control Centers, in 2002 alone, an
estimated 69,000 children less than  six
years old were involved in common
household pesticide-related poisonings
or exposures in the United States.
    Concerns about pesticide use in
                   schools are not
                   unfounded. A 1995
                   report by the
                   General Accounting
                   Office pointed to a
                   lack of control and
                   reporting of pesti-
                 _ cide use in schools.
                 I It cited numerous
                   reports of potential
                   risks  from exposure
                  _ to pesticides.
                       Many surveys
                   have  shown that
                   pesticides often are

                     (Continued on p. 26)

                                  Page 25

  (Schools - from p. 25)

  used illegally by unlicensed applicators
  in schools.
       Adopting integrated pest manage-
  ment in  a school is no easy task. There
  are several different approaches that
  states use to implement IPM. In each,
  sanitation and the exclusion of pests play
  critical roles in IPM.
       In practicing IPM, there must also be a
  financial commitment from top school
  administrators for start-up costs. Along
  with this support, there is the challenge of
  sustaining any program that is initiated.
       Through PESP, the Schools Sector
  continues to improve regional coordina-
  tion for IPM activities in schools and focus
  on expanding the district school models for
  state implementation. A pilot program
  based on the Monroe Mode'/is underway in
  the District of Columbia.
       FPA will continue to work with newer
  PESP members to educate and disseminate
  information on safer pest management
  practices. PESP will expand this sector and
  focus its recruitment efforts on large
  organizations that represent school business
  officials, custodial personnel, and teachers.

       Members of the Schools Sector
  continue to identify models and approaches
  that work. Partnering with state and local
  educational institutions to implement a
  model school by school is the process most
  practiced. The activities and accomplish-
  ments of sector members in adopting IPM
  in schools follow:

  Auburn University - Department of
     Entomology & Plant Pathology
     uses the Monroe Mo del to further
     implement IPM in Alabama's schools.
     Just recently, Auburn certified their
     schools usingthe IPM Star Program.

  IPM Institute of North America, Inc. is
     working to increase the adoption of IPM
     in schools nationwide through the
     development of a schools certification
     program. The TPMStar Program is
     voluntary and includes a rigorous
     evaluation of the school by an IPM
     professional, a comprehensive set of
     reports and recommendations, and
     concerted effort by school
     administrators, staff and contractors
   to meet high standards for effective,
   least-risk pest management. After the
   schools complete these requirements,
   then they are awarded a plaque for
   recognition. The schools must
   recertify their schools every three
   years to ensure that their IPM
   practices are sustainable. This year, the
   following schools received
     -AnneArundel County, MD
     - Kyrene, AZ
     -Auburn, AL
     -Buffalo, NY
     - Pittsburgh, PA
     - several Michigan schools.
   The IPM Institute was recognized as a
   PESP Champion in 2004.

Kyrene Elementary School District was
   one of the first elementary school
   districts, outside of Monroe County, to
   use the Monroe Model to implement
   IPM. Kyrene School District has since
   become the model for the Arizona State
   Coalition that is implementing IPM in
   schools statewide. The coalition has been
   working with a pediatrician to identify
   opportunities to educate school officials
   and other health related occupations.

Monroe County School Corporation
   with support from Indiana University
   created one of the first models for
   implementing IPM in schools. This
   led to the Monroe Model tot
   implementing IPM in schools
   nationally.  Monroe County School
   Corporation is a recipient of the
   Governor's Award for Risk
   Reduction for several years and was
   recognized as a PESP Champion in 2003.

Southwest School IPM Technical
   Resource Center, initially funded by
   EPA, provides technical assistance
   and training for states to implement
   IPM programs in their districts. They
   have been creative in leveraging dollars
   from many different sources to continue
   their outreach efforts. This was their
   third year that they sponsored the IPM
   School Pride Awards.

University  of Florida Cooperative
   Extension Service manages the
   National IPM in Schools Website, a one-
   stop shop for information needed to
   start an IPM program in a school or
   school district.  Recently, they have been
   workingin partnership with experts
   from the Monroe Model to implement
   IPM in Florida schools.
Page 26

                                           TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER SECTOR
                       Sector  Leader:
    The Technology Transfer Sector is
currently composed of 16 members
whose principal focus is technology
transfer. Two of these
organizations recently
applied for member-
ship.  As a group,
these organizations
transfer to pesticide
users' information and
economically viable
technologies that
support the adoption
of IPM and  the safer
use and disposal of
    For the most part,
they are non-profit
organizations that
share PESP's goals of
pesticide risk reduc-
tion, sustainable agriculture, and
environmental stewardship. As PESP
Supporters, they are not users of pesti-
cides, but through their varied activities,
they influence those who do use pesti-
cides by assisting users to adopt prac-
tices that reduce or eliminate pesticide
    "Keeping a Step Ahead," as dis-
cussed in the NationalRoad Map for
IntegratedPestMan agement(Ma.j 17,
2004), aptly and succinctly underscores
the need for increased efforts in technol-
ogy transfer.
    "IPM Practitioners must now, more
than ever, strive to implement best
management practices and tools to
incorporate a pest management regime
where strategies work in concert with
each other to achieve the desired effects
while posing the least risk. Current and
evolving conditions clearly signal  the
need for the increased development and
adoption of IPM practices."  IPM  is a
dynamic process that continually
requires development and application of
new tools and technologies that work
effectively in integrated systems. PESP
has a roll to play in its various sectors.

    Given the close alignment between
the goals of this sector's  members and
                  those of PESP, there are many opportu-
                  nities for sharing information and
                  partnering. Technology transfer should
                  assume a more central position in PESP

Agricultural Conservation Innovation Center             to be assigned
Allied Biological                                   to be assigned
American Association of Pesticide Safety Educators       to be assigned
American Bird Conservancy Pesticides & Birds Camp.      to be assigned
Bio-Integral Resource Center                        Carol Frazer
Clemson University Public Service & Agriculture       Glenn Williams
Crooked River Weed Management Area              to be assigned
Farm & HomeFjivironmentalManagementPrograms     DianaHorne
Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy                Christina Swartz
Massachusetts IPM Council                          to be assigned
N ational C ouncil of Farmer Cooperatives               Diana Home
National Pesticide Stewardship Alliance                Nancy Fitz
Progressive Agriculture Foundation                    to be assigned
ReMetrix LLC                                    N icole Zinn
Texas Pest Management Association                    to be assigned
Univ. of WI - C enter for Integrated Agric. Sy stems        Driss Benmhend
                  both within and across sectors. Conse-
                  quently, EPA will seek to involve the
                  members  of the sector more closely in
                  PESP's strategic planning, goal setting,
                  problem solving and direct actions that
                  increase the program's impact on
                  pesticide risk reduction, sustainable
                  agriculture,  and environmental steward-
                                           SECTOR MEMBERS AND ACTIVITIES
                                               The followingmembers submitted
                                           PESP strategies in 2004:

                                           Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC)is
                                              dedicated to providing people with the
                                              highest quality and most accurate
                                              information on IPM and least-toxic pest
                                              management for urban and agricultural
                                              pestproblems. BIRC is a nationally
                                              recognized expert in T2 concerning IPM
                                              and reduced-risk, alternative pest
                                              management. They publish two
                                              journals, ThelPMPraftitionerand
                                              maintain a Website with an emphasis on
                                              IPM in schools.  In 2004, BIRC reported
                                              that it:
                                              • continued to build access to its publica-
                                               tions, reaching a combined subscription
                                               of 2,300 organizations and individuals;
                                              • continued public outreach via telephone,
                                               email, and postal mail in responding to
                                               over 5,000 requests for information;
                                              • mailed copies of IPM booklets and/or
  back issues of its two journals,
  totaling about 750 booklets or issues
  for the year;
 continued Website development by
 703-308-8287 updating its organic and
              reduced-risk pesticide
              products databases, and
              adding a referral
              database for IPM pest
              control companies;
              • continued training
              programs focusing on
              the California Structural
              IPM Alliance  and
              PCOs that want to be
 703-308-8367 proficient in IPM
 703-305-7385 methods.

 703-308-7076 Farm & Home
              Management Program
supports voluntary pesticide risk
reduction actions by farmers,
ranchers, commercial landscapers
and urban and rural residents.  They
help these groups assess pollution and
health risk on properties they
manage, develop plans to address
pesticide-related and other
environmental risks, create a record
of changes in environmental
management practices, and
communicate environmental
management progress to community
stakeholders. In 2004, the program
planned the following activities:
• develop and disseminate information on
  reducingpollution risks from pesticides
  and on IPM, using publication of
  educational materials, participation in
  trade and government events, and
  internet communications;
• support state water quality pollution
  prevention and assessment programs,
  and state or private sector agriculture
  Environmental Management Systems
  initiatives, by performingnational
  coordinating functions, serving as an
  information clearinghouse, and
  identifying funding support;
• main tain and expand partnerships with
  key agencies such as EPA, NRCS,
  CSREES, andHUD through regular
  communication with key agency officials,
                                                                                                 (Continued on p. 28)
                                                                                                                         Page 27

  (Technology Transfer - from p. 27)
       information sharing, joint projects
       and interagency meetings;
     • support private sector organizations
       and commodity groups in developing
       custom risks assessment materials,
       and build linkages with consumers
       and related private sector groups to
       better address health and environ-
       mental risks;
     • educate the public in eluding youth
       about the importance of individual
       actions in protecting health and the

   Texas Pest Management Association
      (TPMA) focuses its effort on education
      and research in support of IPM that
      reduces pesticide use and risks while
      maintainingprofitably for Texas growers.
      In 2004, TPMA:
     • continued to work with TX Cooperative
       Extension to demonstrate and promote
       the diverse and new IPM technologies
       that reduce pesticide risk while maintain-
     • expanded efforts in urban IPM to reduce
       pesticide contamination ofwater and to
       combat pests such as the red im-
       ported fire ant;
     • developed apian to inform state
       lawmakers during 2005 legislative
       session about ways to expand grant
       money for IPM in urban and rural
     • utilized PESP grant funds to initiate a
       project to expand educational material
       available on the internet for the general
       public about Texas IPM programs;
     • developed IPM portal for rural and urban
       Texas (ipm .tarn u.edu), providinglinks to
       other sites for ag and urban pest
       management and IPM newsletters.

   University of Wisconsin Center  for
      Integrated Agricultural Systems
      (CIAS)  supports multidisciplinary
      teams of faculty, staff, farmers, other
      practitioners and the public that
      pursue long-term, systems-oriented
      research and outreach projects. Focus
      is currently on emerging issues
      associated with grazing, pesticide risk
      reduction, value-added farming
      strategies and beginning farming. Last
      year, CIAS:
     • offered 16 workshops to growers,
       particularly focusing on fresh market

Page 28
    vegetable production, apple produc-
    tion and corn/soybean cropping
  • completed a video for potato pest
    management and began segments on
    fresh market vegetables and apples;
  • secured funds to finalized IPM survey
    for growers to assess IPM and
    pesticide use in orchards;
  • secured funding to create two farmer
    coaching networks to assist growers
    improve IPM scores;
  • continued work on assessing toxicity
    for specific pesticides; and
  • distributed  five guidance products:
    growing alliums, growing salad
    greens, organic certification, cover
    crops, and  a resource CD;
  • supported the Think IPM. org Web site
  • distributed the Organicin  Wisconsin
    report, the basis for Governor's
    Organic Agriculture Summit and
    Task Force on
    Organic Agriculture.

    Among members
that support PESP but
did not submit strategies
in 2004:
   Innovation Center
   works toward
   improving farm land
   conservation through
   greater adoption of
   IPM, nutrient
   conservation tillage
   and other proven,
   alternative best
   management practices
   that reduce adverse impacts on land
   and water.  It developed a financial
   risk management tools to support the
   adoption of IPM and alternative

American Association of Pesticide
   Safety Educators certifies and trains
   at the regional and national level.
   Working with state, territorial,
   provincial, tribal and federal agencies,
   the Association:
  • promoted the protection of human
    health and  the environment through
    high quality pesticide safety and risk
    mitigation education;
  • developed non-English materials for
    pesticide safety education;
  • addressed certification and training
    assessment, endangered species, global
    harmonization and classification of
    pesticides, and national strategies for
    health care providers and pesticides;
  • participated in the State FIFRA Issues
    Research and Evaluation Group.

American Bird Conservancy supports
   efforts to reduce risks to wild birds from
   pesticides. Amongits strategies are:
  • engaging the public and non-profit
    organizations in bird conservation
  • servingas an information and advocacy
  • workingto cancel registrations ofthe
    most dangerous pesticides when
  • encouraging public support of
                   sustainable agricul-
                   tural practices such
                   as organic farming
                   and IPM and use of
                   pesticides, only when
                   needed, that target
                   specific pests and
                   pose the least risk to
                   people and birds.

                   Clem son
                   University provides
                   economically  sound
                   solutions for IPM
                   practitioners, and
                   the necessary tools
                   and encouragement
                   to progress along the
                   IPM continuum. Its
                   activities include:
    transferring its research results to the
    public through extension, education,
    and outreach; workingto reduce
    risks from pesticides in cotton,
    melon, and squash production, and
    through organic farming systems;
    developing an IPMHoase as a model
    for teachingyoungpeople about
    residential IPM;
    developing an integrated management
    strategy for red imported fire ants
    with EPA, USDA/ARS, DoD, and
    the National Guard and training pest
    management coordinators on this
    new strategy.

Institute for Agriculture and Trade
   Policy seeks to reduce the adverse
   health and environmental impact of
   agricultural pesticides through
   education and outreach and ensure
   that pesticide monitoring in
   Minnesota is consistent with public
   health protection. The institute:
  • develops decision tools for farmers to
    reduce the adverse impacts of
    pesticides on groundwater and
    surface water;
  • conducts educational forums and
    workshops on incentives for environ-
    mental stewardship on farms;
  • maintains a Minnesota Pesticide
    Resource Center Website, IPM
    assessment tools for crops, and
    bibliography of pesticide safety
    training materials for Spanish
    speaking farm workers;
  • maintains a Website for sharinginforma-
    tion on emerging stories that affect
    sustainable agriculture and other
    resource uses.

National Council of Farmer
   Cooperativespromotes non-regulatory,
   common sense strategies to reduce
   pesticide risks.  It creates voluntary
   partnerships, serves as an information
   source and facilitative liaison with its
   members, encourages its members to
                        participate in PESP, and facilitates
                        new reduced-risk business and
                        outreach initiatives.

                      National Pesticide Stewardship
                        Alliance serves a key forum for
                        facilitating communication and
                        cooperation on pesticide stewardship.
                        By means of annual conferences,
                        publications, and outreach efforts on
                        the internet, the Alliance seeks to
                        increase the effectiveness, efficiency
                        and longevity of existing and future
                        pesticide stewardship efforts. Its
                        particular focus has been the support
                        of improved pesticide disposal and
                        pesticide recycling programs.

                      ReMetrix LLC, a private company, uses
                        advanced technologies nationwide for
                        the assessment of critical
                        environmental and recreational
                        resources such as lakes, rivers,
                        wetlands, and golf courses.
                        Technologies and services include:
                        • geographic information systems;
                        • ground, aerial and SCUBA diver
                          surveys assisted by the global
                          positioning system (GPS);
                        • aerial and satellite image acquisition;
                          hyperspectral video imaging;
                        • digital image processing; digital
                          mapping; and data reduction and
                            It can combine these tools to
                         produce integrated aquatic vegetation
                         management plans, bathymetric
                         surveys, GPS/GISmaps for water
                         resource management, wetlands
                         surveys and inventories, and golf
                         course management information

                       Wisconsin Department of
                         Agriculture has an endangered
                         species program to assist landowners,
                         managers, and others in the
                         protection of endangered and
                         threatened species and their habitats
                         from pesticide injury and related
                         impacts. Affected parties participate
                         in the development of protection
                         plans, site and species monitoring,
                         and invasive species control. It also
                         provides information about species
                         and pesticides to the public.
                                               TREE FRUIT & NUTS SECTOR
    The U.S. tree fruit and nuts industry
is made up of nearly 5 million acres of
farmland which generate over 12.8
billion dollars in
annual production
revenues. The Tree
Fruit and Nuts
Sector consist of 16
grower organizations
within this industry.
    Sector members
represent 90%ofU.S.
almond and walnut
growers, 96% of
pistachio growers,
99% of prune
growers, 75% of
eastern cherry
growers, and all of
the nation's 7,000
apple growers.
                          Regional partners include represent
                     northwestern, northeastern, and south-
                     eastern peach growers, Hawaiian papaya
Sector Leader:
  Almond Board of California
  California Citrus Research Board
  California Dried Plum Board
  California Pear Organizations
    C alifornia Pear Advisory Board
     California Pear Growers
     Pacific Coast Producers
     Pear Pest Management Research Fund
  California Pistachio Commission
  GeorgiaPeach Council
  Hawaii Papaya Industry Association
  Hood River Grower-Shipper Association
  Michigan Cherry Committee
  Sunkist Growers
  U.S. Apple Association
  Walnut Marketing Board
  Winter Pear Control Committee
  Wisconsin Apple Growers Association
Cheryl Greene
Kathy Davis
Mary Grisier
Carol Frazer
to be assigned
     growers, California's citrus and plum
     growers, and pear growers in the Pacific
     Northwest. Nearly half of the members
              of this sector represent agricul-
              tural commodities grown in

Tobi Colvin-Sny der
Jim Downing
Julie Heflin
Cheryl Greene
Sherry Click
Todd Peterson
Russell Jones
to be assigned
Barbara VanTil

                  During2004, growers in this
              sector faced several unexpected
              challenges that could compromise
              short-term efforts to advance
              pesticide reduced risk practices. In
              addition to increasingglobal
              competition and domestic
              economic pressures, members in
              the southeast region of the
              country have had to salvage  and
              protect crops impacted by an
              unusual number of hurricanes this
              year.  Growers in the northeast
                                                                                                    (Continued on p. 30)
                                                                                                                        Page 29

 (Tree Fruit & Nuts - from p. 29)
   are likewise working to recover from the
   impact of unusually severe weather
   events.  Consequently, these members
   and others  are facing the added challenge
   of maintaining pesticide risk reduction
   practices and successes as they reestab-
   lish damaged or destroyed crops,
   markets and pro fit margins.
       In addition, commodities produced
   within certain IPM programs are at a high
   risk of export bans because of the potential
   for growers  to inadvertently transport
   insects such as coddlingmoth alongwith
   U.S. fruit shipments. In response to
   possible export bans growers groups within
   this sector-particularly those in the western
   region of the country-are under added
   pressure to protect their crops against ever
   tightening export restrictions on plant
   diseases and pests while attempting to
   preserve reduced risk pest management
   practices as they take actions.
       Many of the pest problems and
   management issues are shared by grower
   groups across the sector.  For example, the
   plum curculio, scale insects, codlingmoth,
   and lesser and greater peach tree borers
   continue to  pose significant economic,
   research, and transition problems for sector
   members growing different crops in
   Georgia, Michigan, California and Oregon.
   Although the organophosphate pesticides
   azinphos-methyl and malathion have been
   the prevailing controls for these commodi-
   ties, regional and geographical differences
   dictate that each grower group address
   reduced risk and sustainable alternatives
   practices such  as pheromone baits and traps
       A related challenge  for members of this
   sector continues to be access to new
Page 30
technologies and rapidly changing
resources. To maximize successes and
minimize time transitioning to reduced
risk and environmental sustainable pest
management practices, member grower
groups and their constituents need real-
time, credible and actionable informa-
    Most members in this sector are
taking the lead in addressing this need.
Grower groups are designing and
employing innovative means of commu-
nicating new and emerging technologies
to agricultural and environmental
stakeholders as well as the general
    For example, the Almond Board of
California conducted extensive outreach,
educational and demonstration pro-
grams. The Walnut Marketing Board by
way of the Pest Management Alliance
used its model communications system
(which includes demonstrating reduced-
risk practices) to increase field trials and
direct and attract research directly
relevant to developing economic
reduced risk practices for growers.
Additionally, this group regularly
produces  a specialty newsletter focusing
on Walnut Biologically  Integrated
Orchard Systems and projects and holds
regular stakeholder meetings to commu-
nicate with advances.
    Given these and other challenges  in
2004, all members of the Tree Fruit and
Nuts Sector, continued their efforts to
find replacements for environmentally
risky pesticides and production manage-
ment practices while identifying
effective and sustainable controls for
new and resurfacing pests.
Almond Board of California, a PESP
   Champion for the second consecutive
   year, continued its pesticide
   risk reduction goals by
   advancing its research toward
   implementing a mating
   disruption program for the
   control of the naval
   orangeworm. The
   orangeworm is  a cross-
   commodity pest which to
   varying degrees currently
   undermines almond,
   pistachio, orange, and fig
   crops. For 2004, the board
   dedicated $850,000 to new and
   continuing research and development
   of IPM techniques that will enable
   growers to reduce their reliance on
   higher risk pesticides. Projects
   continued for 2004 included:
  • mating disruption for naval
  • role of natural enemies for leafroller
    and leaffooted bugs,
  • biology and management of ten lined
    June beetle,
  • attractants for ten-lined June beetle,
  • insect and mite IPM research
     In addition, the Almond Board
   began or continued the following
   environmental stewardship activities:
  • environmental stewardship campaign,
  • spray swath analysis/drift manage-
  • reducing imp act of dormant sprays,
  • linking Almond Board to Central
    Valley Watershed Coalitions,
  • emission factors for almond harvest-
  • minimizing emissions, and
  • chloropicrin fumigation.
California Citrus Research Board
   sponsors and supports research for
   the state's citrus industry. During
   2004, pesticide reduced risk activities
  • studies  and demonstrations that
    promote IPM;
  • funding research in plant management
    and physiology, plant improvement,
    pathology, entomology, exotic pests,
    and post-harvest studies;
  • Devaluating research priorities to
    address near-term and long-range
    commodity needs; promoting
    activities and actions to prevent pest
    introductions into the state's citrus
    industry which would increase
    pesticide use and disrupt successful
    IPM activities.

California Dried Plum Board works to
   improve commodity quality, production,
   and environmental stewardship of plum
   production by funding technical field,
   food safety, and environmental hazard
   research. During 2004, the board
  • conducted alternative farming system
    demonstrations which featured an
    economic, low environmental risk
    prune farmingprogram. The system
    utilizes low risk pest control, nutrition
    and water-use practices monitoring
    practices, and pest threshold models.
  • utilized approximately 34 volunteer
    farms to conduct integrated prune
    farming practices research and
    demonstrate outcomes.
California Pear Organizations- California
   Pear Advisory Board, California Pear
   Growers, Pear Pest Management
   Research Fund, and Pacific Coast
   Producers -work cooperatively to
   address market and orchard management
   issues affecting California pear growers.
   Activities included:
  • funding research into low risk alterna-
    tives to control damage from russet,
    scab, surface-feeding insects, and
    codlingmoths; and
  • encouraginggrowers to adopt low risk
California Pistachio Commission
   provides support to over 500 member
   growers through public relations,
   government relations, and marketing and
   production research. During 2004, the
  • continued research on naval
    orangeworm pheromone components,
    synthesis and improved traps;
  • continueddevelopingnew attractants
    for naval orangeworm oviposition
  • researched alternatives to organophos-
    phate and carbamate insecticides used
    in pistachio production.
Georgia Peach Council is the educational
   and outreach organization for peach
   producers in Georgia and South
   Carolina. Activities initiated or
   completed in 2004 included:
  • completed initial field trial testing of a
    pheromone for lesser-peach tree borer
    control in northeastern peach produc-
  • conducted ongoing research on the IPM-
    based control of plum curculio;
  • hosted the National Peach Council
    partnered with six universities to obtain
     $102million USDA RAMP grant for
    Risksln Eastern Peaches ($70,000 for a
    reduced risk program for managing the
    lesser peach tree borer);
  • partnered with University of Georgia to
    obtain a $90,000 EPA Strategic Agricul-
    tural Initiative grant for validation of
    pheromone concentrations required to
    control lesser peach tree borer.
Hood River Grower-Shipper Association
   (HRGSA) represents growers,
   packinghouse and agrichemical company
   field representatives, independent
   consultants, and university personnel in
   northern Oregon and southern
   Washington. This group is responsible for
   the development and direction of the
   Hood River District Integrated Fruit
   Production Program. In 2004, HRGSA:
  • continued its efforts to advance a strategy
    for controllingnon-agricultural
    coddling moth populations created by
    urban and industrial encroachment on
    fruit orchards;
  • upgraded and increased the number of
    regional weather stations to assist
    growers in achieving better control of
    pests and disease with fewer spray
  • continued cooperative research with
    Oregon State University to determine
    reasons for codling moth control
    failures and to improve forecast models;
  • worked with local packers, pesticide
    suppliers, and Oregon State University
    Extension to develop best management
    practices to help minimize the possibil-
    ity of pesticides and herbicides entering
Michigan Cherry Committee provides
   market and economic development
   opportunities for the Michigan cherry
   industry and supports and represents the
   more than 1,000 cherry growers in the
   state. In 2004, the committee:
  • continued evaluation of cherry fruit fly
    traps and baits under organophosphate,
    OP-alternative, or unsprayed condi-
  • continued testing and evaluation of
    spinosad GF-120 and some newly
    proposed pesticides for control  of plum
    curculio and cherry fruit fly;
  • continued efforts to develop reduced risk
    leaf spot and brown rot disease control
  • co-sponsored the Michigan crop tour.
Walnut Marketing Board works to reduce
   pesticide application in California's
   walnut orchards and supports innovation
   and continuous improvement in walnut
   grow ing and processing. During 2004, the
   board cooperated with the California
   Department of Pesticide Regulation and
   Walnut Pest Management Alliance to:
   • advance work to verify and demonstrate
     to growers that Codling Moth F
     spray able pheromone at lower rates can
     be integrated into the codling moth
     control program to reduce insecticides
     at no additional cost to growers;
   •  increase its number of research sites for
     testing and comparing reduced
     pesticide controls (pheromones) against
     standard pest treatments;
   • establish demonstration sites to evaluate
     economical and effective lower-risk
     alternatives to conventional pesticides;
   • successfully demonstrated codling moth
     mating disruption with the use of
     Suterra CM-F, and 3-M pheromone in
     spray able formulations;
   •  initiated a w alnut blight demonstration
     program using the xanthocast model;
   • worked with theNature Conservancy to
     conduct field trials on more than 1,000
     acres of environmentally sensitive land;
   • published Walnut Research Reports.
Wisconsin Apple Growers Association
   unites commercial apple growers in
   common pursuits, provides consumer
   education, and supports research and
   market development. Their activities
   included an IPM program focused on
   keeping growers apprised of current
   techniques and information exchange
   opportunities. In 2004, the association:
   • began field testing and refining a
     pesticide risk reduction standard;
   • hosted Wisconsin Fresh Fruit and
     Vegetable Conference, a forum for
     growers and researchers to communi-
     cate IPM techniques and advances; and
   • hosted Wisconsin Apple Field Days, an
     outlet for growers and researchers to
     demonstrate and discuss innovative
     IPM techniques and orchard manage-
     ment strategies.
Winter Pear Control Committee
   represents and supports growers and
   shippers of fresh winter pears grown
   commercially in Oregon and
                                                                                                                           Page 31

                           VEGETABLES SECTOR
Sector Leader:
       The Vegetables Sector consists of six
   organizations indudingtwo grower groups
   and three research boards. These
   organizations play a
   key role in providing
   research, outreach,
   and technology
   transfer among
   growers and a link to
   current research being
   conducted by univer-
   sity and agriculture
   extension agencies.
       Sector members are vegetable
   growers and associations partially
   representative of the 54,000 vegetable
   farms growing vegetables on 6.75 million
   acres in the United States. These farms
   contribute to the 2,000 pounds of
   produce each U.S. citizen consumes
   annually, as well as fresh market exports
   totalingmore than 39 million cwt (1.95
   million tons).

       Producers use over 4.6 million acre
   treatments of organophosphate and
   carbamate pesticides annually, which
   represent 15% ofpesticides used on
   vegetable crops.
       The major challenge this sector faces is
   to develop pest management options that
   reduce pesticide risk but are effective,
   affordable, and economically feasible for the
   producer. IPM techniques must be
   refined to increase effectiveness  and
   reduce uncertainty about their use. On
   high value crops with very tight margins,
   growers cannot afford to gamble on
   unproven pest management strategies.
       Vegetable farmingis labor intensive
   and has relatively high crop values per acre,
   making more intensive pest management
   feasible. This high per-acre value,
   coupled with the visibility and public
   sensitivity to pesticide residue issues,
   provides an even greater opportunity and
   incentive for vegetable growers to
   implement reduced-risk practices.
       The long-term goal of this sector is
   to lead the nation in  finding ways to
   reduce pesticide residues, thus potential
   exposure to pesticides by the public,
   especially children.  Our nation's

Page 32
                    children, a particularly sensitive
                    population, eat a great deal of produce
                    (fresh and minimally processed), hence
                    the need for attention to pest manage-
                    ment strategies in this sector.
                 were conducted and compared with
                 1,3-dichloropropene and metam
                 sodium applications;
                • researched the use of mustard cover
                 crops (Rrassicajunced) which, when
  Artichoke Research Association
  California Fresh Carrot Advisory Board
  California Lettuce Research Board
  California Tomato Commission
  Florida Fruit & Vegetable Association
  Michigan Asparagus Research, Inc.
  New England Vegetable & Berry Growers Association
Regina Langton
Carol Frazer
Gail Tomimatsu
Cindy Wire
Gail Tomimatsu
Lora Schroeder
Christina Scheltema
Mary Clock-Rust
                    SECTOR MEMBERS AND 2004
                    Artichoke Research Association was
                       named a 2004 PESP Champion for
                       helping artichoke producers adopt
                       risk reduction approaches in a
                       consistent, goal-oriented way.  Some
                       accomplishments reported in 2004
                       • use of 300-day puffer for mating
                        disruption of the artichoke plume
                        moth and its impressive 25-30 percent
                        reduction in the use of conventional
                        pesticides in the first year;
                       •useofthepheromone (Z-ll-
                        hexadeceneal) in mating disruption of
                        the artichoke plume moth.
                    California Fresh Carrot Advisory
                       Board supports research involving
                       biological, cultural, physical, and
                       chemical pest control methodologies.
                       Research findings are used to create
                       safer, cost-effective pest control
                       programs for carrots.  In 2004, the
                       • continued research on alternatives to
                        soil fumigation with 1,3-
                        dichloropropene or metam sodium
                        for nematode control.  Trials with
                        cover crops (trap crops) as well as
                        with biological control materials
                    broken down in the
                    soil, release
                    compounds that are
                    lethal to bacteria
                    and fungi.
                    California Lettuce
                    Research Board
                    invests in research
                    on  iceberg and leaf
  lettuce, with great emphasis on plant
  breeding, post-harvest activities, pest
  and disease management, and nutrient
  research. In 2004, the board
  • research to assess the potential impact
    of the loss of diazinon to control soil
    insects. Preliminary efficacy data were
    obtained by comparingthe standard
    conventional treatment of diazinon
    with synthetic pyrethroids. Preliminary
    data indicate that synthetic pyrethroids
    may be effective replacements; and
  • research to assess the impact of thrips
    populations on both domestic and
    export lettuce quality at harvest. Data are
    being obtained from both the northern
    coastal and southern desert regions.
    Comparisons will be made between
    standard thrips management pesticides
    (e.g. methomyl) and the conventional
    (i.e. Success) and organic formulations
    (i.e. Entrust) of the reduced risk product
California Tomato Commission funds
  research on IPM and regional reduced-
  risk programs for fresh tomato growers,
  handlers, and crop advisors. The
  commission focused on alternatives to
  the higher-risk pesticides designated by
  FQPA and on worker safety.  In 2004,
  CTC reported the following
  research to identify pest resistance in
  research on the use of pheromone traps
    for stink bugs;
  evaluation of the effectiveness ofnatural
    stink bugpredators for stink bug
  tested product mixes  including pyre-
    throid and chloronicotinyl materials
    and pyrethroids with IGRs for

    control of stink bugs.
  developed new biotechnical tools for
    detection of curly top viruses in both
    plants andleafhoppers.
Florida Fruit & Vegetable Association
   focuses on the identification of pest
   management tools that reduce
   pesticide risk to humans and the
   environment. The association
   encouraged positive communication
   among Florida agricultural
   stakeholders through education and
   training activities, and by sponsoring
                        field tours and meetings for pesticide
                        users, industry, regulatory agencies,
                        and others in the environmental
                     Michigan Asparagus Research, Inc.
                        funds research projects that aid in
                        reducing pesticide use and in the
                        transition to reduced risk pesticides. It
                        also funds projects to increase the
                        adoption ofon-farm scouting as a
                        strategy to expand the use of disease
                        forecasting systems. In 2004, they
                        reported on trials underway to evaluate
                                          chemical and biological treatments
                                          on T
 (StrategicAg - from p.  33)
     • New England Vegetable and Berry
       Grower's Association - Enhanced
       Sustainability of New England
       Vegetable Growers through Increased
       Use of IPM and Reduced Use of
       High Risk Pesticides
     • Red Tomato - Economic Incentives
       for High Toxicity Pesticide Reduc-
       tion in Northeast Apples

       continues to strengthen our partner-
   ship with NRCS. Projects selected for
   fun ding this year:
     • RutgersCooperativeExtension-
       Blueberry Reduced Risk Integrated Crop
       Management System for New Jersey

       continues partnerships with the diverse
   agricultural sectors within the region.
   Projects selected for funding this year:
     • PennsylvaniaAssoriationof Sustain-
       able Agriculture-Production Methods
       to Reduce Pesticide U se on the Farm: A
       Farm Based Education Series
     • Pennsylvania Department of Agricul-
       ture - Greenhouse Integrated Pest
       Management for the Amish & Menno-
       nite Community ofLancaster County.
     • Pennsylvania Department of Agricul-
       ture - Implementing Greenhouse
       Integrated Pest Management in
       Southwestern Pennsylvania
     • University of Delaware-Pest Control
       Survey in LimaBeansin Delaware and
       Eastern Shore Maryland
     • University of Maryland - Integrated
       Disease Management System for
       Reducing Fungicide U se in Watermelon
     • National Audubon Society (Pickering
       Creek, MD, Audubon Society) - Organic
       Alternatives of Mid-Atlantic Grain
    developed an
program that
includes three
categories of
measures: short,
long, and very
long-term. This
model is being
modified and
adopted by other
EPA Regions. Projects selected for
funding this year:
  • Clemson University - Demonstra-
    tion of Refined Treatment Thresh-
    olds for Sucking Bugs in Advanced
    B.t. Varieties to Reduce Insecticide
    Use in Cotton
  • GeorgiaOrganics-Reducing Pesticide
    Use in Fruit and Vegetable Produc-
    tion in Georgia
  • University of Tennessee - Develop-
    ment and Promotion of Management
    Program for the Grape Root Borer
  • University of Florida and Clemson
    University - Multi-State Strawberry
    IPM On-farm Research and Imple-

    presented FQPA  and IPM updates
to over  120 apple and blueberry growers,
researchers and extension  specialists in
three states. Projects selected for
funding this year:
  • Center for Agricultural Partner-
    ships - Putting the Farm Bill to Work:
    Increasing the Ability of Michigan
    Asparagus, Cherry and Nursery
    Producers to Adopt Reduced Risk
    IPM Practices
  • Michigan State University - Multi-
    faceted IPM training to reduce
    pesticide risk in Michigan vineyards
  • Michigan State University - Multi-
    state agroecology network linking
    farmers and scientists in Michigan,
    Illinois and Indiana
  • Protected Harvest - Using Tradi-
    tional Retail Market Launch Strate-
    gies to Increase the Adoption of IPM
    in Wisconsin Fields
  • University of Wisconsin - Pesticide
    risk reduction in Wisconsin apple
Page 34
    continues to build partnerships with
minor crop commodity groups and
USDA/CSREES. Projects selected for
funding this year:
  • Texas A&M Cooperative Extension
    Service - Use of Integrated Weed
    Management in Strategies and
    Computer Technologies to Reduce
    Environmental Impact in Corn and
    Cotton Production
  • University of Arkansas - Pesticide
    Pollution Risk Assessment of
    Mitigation Trainingin the Arkansas
  • LouisianaStateUniversity-Chemical
    Management of Stem-Boring Insects in
    Environmentally Sensitive
    Agroecosy stems
  • Oklahoma State University -
    Validation of a Sampling Plan for
    Classifying Cereal Aphid Parasitism
    Levels and Predicting Suppression in
    Winter Wheat

    is workingwith grantees to develop
environmental measures/indicators.
Projects selected for funding this year:
  • Missouri Department of Agriculture -
    Reducing Insecticide U se on Missouri
    Bootheel Produced Watermelons.
  • Kansas State University-Evaluation of
    Sunflowers as a Trap Crop

    is making significant progress promot-
ingthe SAIprogram and establishing new
partnerships. Projects selected for funding
this year:
  • Organic Farming Research
    Foundation - Organic Farming
    Research for Weed, Disease, and
    Insect Pest Management;
  • Colorado State University, West-

    ern Colorado Research Center -
    Application of Crop Modeling for
    Sustainable Grape Production - 2
    Year Extension (continuation of 2002
    SAI grant)
  • Colorado State University -
    Innovative Precision Management
    Strategies to Reduce Pesticides and
    Nitrogen Loading Into Soil for
    Sustainable Agricultural Production
    Systems (continuation of2003 SAI
  • Colorado State University -
    Biological Control of Field Bind-
    weed by Aceria m ahlerbae(& mite
    species) (continuation of 2003 SAI
    worked with USDA/NRCSin
California to  update the EQIP pest
management  standard, and jointly
selected two pilot projects that leverage
EPA and USDA dollars:
    Projects selected for funding this
  • University of Hawaii/Kaneohe
    Co.- Increasing Food Safety and
    Minimizing Risk for  Hawaii's Small
    Scale Farming Communities
  • Center for Agricultural Partnerships-
    Puttingthe Farm Bill to Work: A
    Program to In crease the Ability of
    Northern California Specialty Crop
    Producers to Access EQIP
  • UniversityofC alifor nia Regent s,
    University of California, Davis-
    Implementation and Extension of
    Refined Management Strategies for
    Egyptian Alfalfa Weevil in
    California Alfalfa
  • California Department of Pesticide
    Regulation - Reducing use of FQPA
    pesticides in Stone Fruit Orchards in
    California's San Joaquin Valley
  • University of California Sustain-
    able Agriculture Research and
    Education Program -Enhancing
    Biologically Integrated Farming
    Systems (BIFS) for Lettuce on the
    Central Coast of Californi

    was able to add to SAI resources this
year by leveraging funds from a new
EPA initiative, Community Action for a
Renewed Environment. The additional
funding allowed the region to incorpo-
rate water quality and irrigation manage-
ment elements into existing SAI His-
panic orchardist pest management
    Projects selected for funding this
  • Optimized IPM & Washington
    Tree Fruit Research Commission -
    Codling Moth Control Implementa-
    tion through Fruit PackingHouse
    Cooperation in the Yakima Valley
    and Columbia Basin, WA
  • Washington State University and
    Washington  State University
    Extension - Control of loopers and
    cutworms through bait and kill
    technique in the Columbia Basin of
    Washington & Northern Oregon
  • Washington State University  &
    Washington  State Concord Grape
    Research Council - Yakima Valley
    Cutworms Climb No More. Moths
    Take a Whiff and Die
  • Peerbolt  Crop Management,
    Washington  State University &
    USDA/ARS -Implementation of an
    area-wide IPM program for leafroller
    contaminants in caneberries in
    Southwestern Washington and
    Western Oregon
  • Washington State University and
    Washington  State University
    Extension - Enhancing Widespread
    Adoption of Weather-related
    Decision Support Tools (building on
    AgWeatherNet program) through
    Education in Wenatchee Valley and
    Waluke Slope, Washington
  • Simone IPM Consulting / Center
    for Agricultural Partnerships -
    Hispanic Tree Fruit Grower and
    Risk Pest Management Strategies in
    Northern Washington
                                                                                                                    Page 35

                                         IPM  IN  SCHOOLS  INITIATIVE
       The overarching goal for the
   National IPM in Schools Initiative is to
   protect children from unnecessary
   exposure to pesticides. By implementing
   integrated pest management in our
   nation's schools and making a connec-
   tion to pesticide safety and awareness in
   the home, EPA is  providing education
   and reducing pesticide risks both in our
   nation's schools and residences.
       Children are among the most vulner-
   able to the effects of pesticides. Fortu-
   nately, schools can significantly decrease
   and ultimately eliminate their use of the
   most toxic pesticides while successfully
   and cost-effectively managing pest
   problems in  school buildings and on
   school grounds. Safer pest management
   strategies such as IPM use alternatives to
   prevailing chemical-intensive practices.
       IPM is a program of pest prevention,
   monitoring, and control that offers the
   opportunity to eliminate or drastically
   reduce conventional pesticide use in schools.
   An IPM program makes use of cultural,
   mechanical, biological, and other non-toxic
   practices, and includes judicious use of
   pesticides when necessary.

   Pesticides and Schools Workgroup
       EPA provides coordination and
   leadership of the National IPM in Schools
   Initiative through PESP and the OPP
   Pesticides in Schools Workgroup. Consist-
   ing of OPP and regional staff, the
   workgroup works to promote the adoption
   of IPM in schools through communica-
   tions, targeted funding, and guidance.
       Major accomplishments included:
     • Increased involvement in the OPP's
       Pesticide and School Workgroup to
       include both Region 1 and 4;
     • Presentations by IPM experts -Janet
       Hurley,  Texas A&M; Marc Lame,
       Indiana University; Tom Green, IPM
       Institute of North America;
     •  Updated the EPA Pesticides and
       Schools Website: iviviv.epa.gov/
       pesticides/ipm  to include improved
       information on IPM adoption;
     • Increased distribution of the popular
       brochure, Protecting Children in
       Schools fro m Pests an d Pesticides at
       several conferences including EPA's

Page 36
    Tools for Schools National Sympo-
    sium, Children's Health Summit, and
    many other state conferences/
    training sessions;
  • Reviewed EPA's Healthy EMvironm en-
    talAssessment Tool, which is being
    developed by the Office of
    Children's Health Protection.
    In addition to these accomplish-
ments, the workgroup provided guidance
and support that resulted in the imple-
mentation of the following IPM in
schools model projects.

 OPP Pesticides in Schools Workgroup
 Chair: Sherry Click 703-308-7035
  Ruth Allen               703-305-7191
  Linda Arrington           703-305-5446
  Donald Baumgartner       312-886-7835
  DarleneDinkins           703-305-5214
  Mary Grisier              415-947-4213
  Deborah Hartman         703-305-7100
  RobKoethe              617-918-1535

Troy Pierce
    Monroe Model Pilot Programs
    The Monroe Model was named after
the Monroe County Community School
Corporation (MCCSC) in Indiana where
the program was first undertaken.
MCCSC has been a PESP Champion and
recipient of the Indiana's Governor's
Award for Risk Reduction.
    The Monroe Model takes a hands-on
approach, starting with the identification
o^ change agents in a given school area.
    Its results are measurable — a 92%
reduction  in pesticide use and a 50%
reduction  in most
Based on
Indiana's  success
in implementing
IPM in its
schools, the
model was
piloted in  several
parts of the
country and
impacted over
one million
    Pilot programs and accomplish-
ments in 2004 b ased on the Mo nroe Mo del
  • District of Columbia Public Schools
    System, with funding from a
    NFIPME grant, began pilots in three
    schools: Woodson High School,
    Shepherd Elementary, and Hart
    Middle School. Because of competing
    priorities, this project has had a slow
    start and there is not yet a demon-
    strated commitment to adopting
    school IPM on a larger scale.
    However, EPA and several other
    groups, including Beyond Pesticides,
    have been encouraging officials to
    regain their commitment to school
  • State of Florida, led by efforts from
    the University of Florida and leaders
    ofthe Monroe Model, are charging
    ahead to implement IPM in their
    state schools. By the end of 2005, all
    schools in Florida will be practicing
  • The Florida IPM project began with
    three pilot schools in Brevard
    County. By mid-2005, there will be
    90 schools from Brevard County and
    185 schools from Palm Beach County
    utilizing the Mo nroe Mo del.
  • Kyrene School District continues to
    provide a model for adoption of IPM
    in Arizona schools statewide. After
    realizing a 90% reduction in pesticide
    use and an 85% drop in pests through-
    out their 25 schools, the program has
    become part of an initiative led by

 the Arizona Department of Environ-
 mental Quality, Arizona Coalition
 for IPM School Adoption and
 Arizona State University to improve
 children's health.
To enhance implementation of school
 IPM and further healthy schools in
 general, Arizona State University has
 begun working with a pediatrician to
 identify health issues and measures
 that affect learningin the Arizona
 school environments.
IPM Star Program from thelPM
 Institute of North America, a PESP
 member, continues to certify and
 recognize schools nationally for
 adopting IPM. The program contin-
 ues to be adopted nationally by many
 school districts including school
 districts in Alabama, Michigan,
 Wisconsin, Indiana, Maine, Mary-
 land, Pennsylvania and Washington.
IPM Insti tute of North Americahas
 certified 12 school systems to date using
 their IPM Star Program, impactingmore
 than l.Smillion school children. There
 are another four school districts in
 progress. Overall, schools raised their
 scores 12percentage points between the
 time of the evaluation and the final
IPM Institute of North America is also
 developinga database that will enable
 schools and others tochoosethe least
 toxic option to manage pests. To learn
 more about this, visit their website at:
 www ipm institute.org/schooljiest_control/
 home htm
Beyond Pesticides is workingwith EPA
 to implement IPM in schools. They
 have developed a site for consumers to
 identify pest management companies in
 their area that can remedy their pest
 problem s without using dangerous
 pesticides. For more information on
 the directory, see their website at:
 m m m.beyondpestiddes.org/safetysoune/
low a State University sponsored the
 Midwest School IPM Conference in
 March. The meetinginduded discus-
 sions on the challenges of adopting
 IPM, pest identification, landscaping
 schools, trap placements and mandated
 vs. voluntary adoption. Participants
 included EPA Regions 5 and 7, and state
 representatives from Kansas, Missouri,
 Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, and
 South Dakota.
    The National Lawns and Environ-
ment (L&E) Initiative began in 2002 with
the goal of encouraging environmentally
responsible lawn and landscaping
practices in  residential landscape
creation and maintenance. EPA is one
member of the initiative, which is
producing Guideiinesfor an Environmen-
tally Responsible Landscape. Other L&E
members include:

  Agronomy & Horticulture Services LLC
  American Nursery & Landscaping
  Businesses for the Bay, Chesapeake Bay
    Program, and Alliance for the
     Chesapeake Bay
  Center for Resource Management
  Golf Course Superintendents Association
  National GardeningAssociation
  N ational Wildlife Federation
  Professional Lawn Care Association
  Responsible Industry for a Sound
  Rutgers Cooperative Extension
  San Antonio Water System
  The Scotts Company
  TruGreen Companies
  TheToro  Company
  U.S. Department of Agriculture,
     Cooperative State Research,
    Education, and Extension Service

    A national
conference took
place in March of
2004, in San
Antonio, Texas,
to continue
development of
the guidelines.
that several
models  be
developed to
evaluate the
impact of the
L&E guidelines
on the environ-
mental situation
of a community. They also recom-
mended that the educational methods be
evaluated to determine which are most
effective in changing environmental
behavior of selected neighborhoods
within a community.
    EPA Region 3 has begun a demon-
stration project for Spring2005
(iv iv iv .epa.go v /regSiv cm d/
pesticideslaiv n .htm). The project com-
bines the outreach component of
responsible lawn care and landscaping
with environmental measurements to
demonstrate  the success of an intensive
neighborhood educational program.
    By achieving measurable results,
Region 3 hopes to document the success
of educational outreach  on changing
human behaviors to enhance the
environmental quality of residential
landscapes. The objectives of the
demonstration are to:
   • educate the residential community on
    environmentally responsible
    methods of lawn care and landscap-
   • document the  success of an intensive
    outreach program in a controlled
    area using approved environmental
    measures;  and
   • justify expansion of the initiative's
    outreach program to a larger
    geographic area.

    San Antonio, Texas, was selected as
the site for a second demonstration
because of its aggressive and successful
educational programs in water conserva-
tion and water quality. The water
          (Continued on p.  38)
                                 Page 37

  (Turf - from p. 37)
  quality agreement negotiated with
  developers of the PGA Golf Resort over
  the Edwards Aquifer provides opportu-
  nities to test environmental educational
      The goal of the demonstration
  project is to measure the environmental
  advantages when a neighborhood
  follows the Lawns and Environment
  guidelines.  Specifically, the project will
  compare water use,  stormwater runoff,
  biological characteristics,  and aesthetic
  qualities between neighborhoods that
  follow the guidelines and neighborhoods
  that do not.
      The purpose is to determine which
  educational methods are effective in
  promoting the guidelines to the extent
  that they change environmental behavior
  and increase environmental quality..

      Another recommendation to emerge
  from the San Antonio meeting was for the
  Initiative to look at ways to measure the
  success of the program. One measure
  that is being developed from the Guide-
  tin esfo r an En v in n m en tally Re span sible
  Lan dscape is the En v in n m en tal Sco re card.
  Based on the guidelines, the National
  Gardening Institute created the
  scorecard using 12 questions that a
  consumer can easily answer.  The
  initiative hopes to eventually use the
  scorecard to assess the impact.
      The scorecard is a very inexpensive w ay
  to measure changes in consumer behaviors.
  One goal of the demonstration programs is
  to link the public education programs to
  changes in the scorecard. And then changes
  in the scorecard with real environmental
  outcomes with respect to water use and
  water quality.


Which, if any, of the lawn, garden and landscaping practices listed below will
   your household follow at home this year?
                                                         Households with
                                                         Yard or Garden
    Environmentally Friendly Lawn and Garden Practices  %     Million

    Keep your yard safe, clean and well maintained to add
    beauty to your home and neighborhood                67      60

    Water your lawn and plants only when they need it.
    Use  water wisely                                     65      59

    Read and follow the label carefully when using
    pesticides and fertilizers                               53      47

    Leave grass clippings in place on your lawn.                45      41

    Keep fertilizer, pesticide, yard and pet waste out of
    water sources and off pavement.                          43      39

    Choose and use the right plants in the right spot for your
    climate, sun/shade, soil and rain fall.                      42      37

    Apply mulch around trees, shrubs or garden areas          42      37

    Cut your lawn at the highest recommended mower setting   39      35

    Before using pesticides to control insects or weeds make
    Sure the problem is correctly identified and what the most
    Appropriate method to control the problem is.             32      29

    Recycle yard waste by compostinggrass dippings, leaves
    and other organic materials.                              28      25

    Learn more about how to best care for the lawn,
    specific plants, soil and wildlife at your home.               26      23

    U se only well-adapted or native plants in your landscaping
    and remove poorly adapted, exotic or invasive plants.        25      23
    None of the above
    Don't Know

    Base: Have Yard Or Garden
Page 38

     To assess the ultimate outcome of its
 regulatory decisions, EPA needs indicators
 for monitoring the health of the environ-
     In 2003, OPP initiated aproject to
 develop environmental indicators focusing
 on birds. Birds are an important compo-
 nent of the terrestrial ecosystem and are
 highly valued by the public. However, birds
 are especially sensitive to toxic pesticides.
 This project makes use of abundant data
 already collected on bird populations
 throughout the country.
     The current measure used in Govern-
 ment Performance and Results reports is,
 "avian mortality incidents as a result of
 pesticide poisoning."
     It is believed that less than 10% of
 incidents are reported. Reports are voluntary,
 and compliance varies by state. The remains
 of dead birds quickly disappear when they
 are consumed by scavengers.
     Birds are monitored in different
 regions or according to habitat types. A
 group of birds that has been receiving little
 focus in the  U.S. has been farmland birds.
 These birds are not associated taxonomically
 or by feeding traits. They are merely
 associated with amajor land use, namely
     Farmland birds can be attracted to the
 open nature of agricultural fields and
 pastures; to food resources, whether
 rodents, insects, or the crops themselves; or
    In addition to its voluntary partnership
programs, EPA provides direct fundingto
organizations that support its goals of
promoting IPM and reducing the risk of
pesticides. These organizations identify
individual projects and activities that will have
the greatest impact then provide financial and
staff support.
    EPA works closely with these groups to
identify risk reduction goals, successful
approaches, available matching funds, and
methods to measure success.
    The Environmental Stewardship Branch
oversees the distribution of environmental
stew ardship funds provided by the EPA to
the groups highlighted in Chart 5. The
organizations and the individual projects they
funded are further described in this chapter.
to nesting and roosting habitats available
in orchards and tree farms.
     Because farmland birds inhabit a
highly managed landscape covering
approximately 377 million acres of non-
federal lands that are used to grow crops
and 120 million acres of managed to
produce forage for livestock, evaluatinghow
changes in the management practices on
agricultural lands is beneficial or detrimental
to bird populations is an important step
toward determining how to best manage
lands to both agricultural commodities as
well as wildlife.
    The focal area for the development of
an avian indicator for agricultural lands is the
Great Lakes region (EPA Region V) and
Iowa. This constitutes the major corn
growing region of the Midwest.
    For this region, there are adequate
Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) routes associ-
ated with row crops to evaluate whether
population trends for farmland birds
change through time and can be attributed
to changes in agricultural practices, such as
the introduction of genetically modified
crops or changes in pesticide use patterns. It
is possible to categorize or rank BBS routes
according to the amount of agricultural
lands within 1/4 mi (400 m). Then is it
possible to either compare the population
trends across classes of BBS routes
categorized according to agricultural
    The current indicator is based on the
amount of row crops adjacent to BBS
routes and has been broken into classes
of < 25%, 25-50%, 50-75%, and > 75%.
    Two primary types of questions can be
answered. The first is whether the number
of birds differs according to the row crop
category. The second is whether the
population trend changes following a
change in policy or agricultural practice.
    For either question, individual species
or groups of species can be considered.
When individual species are considered, all
species that occur along BBS routes could be
included, or species can be selected according
to certain criteria such as feeding guild,
nestinghabitat, or migratory status.
    Species could be considered as groups
accordingto these same criteria. For
example, all insectivores that nest in shrubs
or hedgerows could be analyzed as a group
and a combined trend for all species
    A final report on the development of a
roadmap for avian indicators on agricultural
lands is planned for completion in December
2004. The eventual goal is to understand the
quantitative relationships from product
toxicity and exposures, incident reporting
from actual use, and impact on avian
populations. The impact of EPA program
decisions will be better understood.
                   Chart 5. Allocation  of 2004 Funds
                               ($3,367,600 tcttl)
 Center for Agricultural
                          PESP Regional
                          Initiative Grants
   American Farmland
           Strategic Agricultural
IR4/EPA Biopeslieide
                                                                    •Administration of
                   National Foundation
                    foi IPM Education
                                                                                                                       Page 39

    The National Foundation for IPM
Education (NFIPME) was founded in 1992
as anot-for profit, public foundation to
increase the adoption of IPM through
education, information, and research. The
foundation designs and conducts educa-
tional programs for
interdisciplinary training
on IPM, increases visibility
and acceptance of IPM by
disseminatingin forma-
tion, facilitates the transfer
of IPM technologies to
professionals and the
general public, and
supports demonstration
research in pest management in agriculture,
structures, and landscapes. NFIPME
specializes in projects that bring together
diverse interests and perspectives to engage
in constructive dialogue. All of these
projects are directed toward the widespread
adoption of IPM and reducing pesticide
    Early in its relationship with EPA,
NFIPME focused on sponsoringjoint
meetings on IPM adoption. Its staff
conducted workshops with growers to
identify barriers to IPM adoption for most
of the major agricultural crops. In addition,
they held IPM workshops in several states
to improve the media's understanding of
IPM practices. With the formation of BPPD
and the creation of PESP in 1994, the
objectives of the partnership shifted. The
Foundation focused more on furthering
IPM adoption and pesticide risk reduction
by offering competitive grants and jointly
sponsoring meetings with PESP members
to promote information sharing and
technology transfer.
    In addition to competitive grants
projects, NFIPMEis involved in replicating
and expanding successful projects in other
regions. Since 1995,NFIPMEfunded
nearly 70 projects. During2004, the final
year of a five-year cooperative agreement,
EPA provided financial support to
NFIPME in the awarding of nine grants
through an open, competitive process. The
proposals and final reports for these
projects are available on NFIPME's Website
Page 40
/ Foundation
                             IPM Education
Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay -
   FormingPartnerships with Nurseries
   and Other Retailers Selling Landscaping
   Products and Developing Relationships
               with Master Gardeners
               and Local Experts to
               Serve as Educators for
               Homeowners and
               Businesses Who Wish to
               Implement IPM. A
               broad-based community
               effort to increase
               awareness and use of
               IPM by the gen era! public
               in one region of the
   Chesapeake Bay watershed. Primary
   elements are to: partner with retailers
   sellinglandscapingproducts to stock
   IPM related products and ensure
   employees are trained in IPM; and
   develop relationships with Master
   Gardeners and others to consult with
   and educate homeowners and businesses
   on IPM practices.

Agren, Inc. developed a risk management
   tool that replaces the need for a farmer to
   utilize soil applied insecticides to manage
   the risk of corn rootworm infestation in
   continuous corn. A Service Performance
   Guarantee w as provided to encourage
   growers with below-threshold levels of
   corn root worm beetles no to treat their
   fields. Agren will further evaluate if this
   guarantee can be offered as a cost
   competitive solution to reduce the
   unnecessary use of soil applied

Central Coast VineyardTeam (CCVT)
   promoted sustainable practices through
   its Positive Points System, aprotocol for
   assessing the extent of integrated
   vineyard farmingpractices. CCVT
   conducted 12 grower-to-grower
   educational meetings reaching 540 people
   and significant acreage. CCVT
   disseminated Positive Points System
   practices and grower experience through
   newsletters, a website, presentations,
   educational booths, and industry articles.
   C C VT helped 82 growers complete their
   Positive Points System evaluation for the
   2003 season. Pesticide use analyses on
   several demonstration blocks showed
   total use decreased from 2002 to 2003.

Michigan Asparagus Research, Inc. /
   Michigan State University -
   Promoting Pest Forecasting and
   Scouting as Standard Management Tools
   in MI Asparagus. Utilize the Tom-Cast
   disease forecasting system to predict
   foliar blights on 60% of MI asparagus
   acreage. 2001 pilot resulted in 30% of
   asparagus acreage using the system and
   eliminating one fungicide application (a
   reduction of 9,000 Ibs of pesticide).
   Intend to double the acreage managed
   with Tom-Cast through training
   programs and demonstration sites on
   commercial farms that highlight scouting
   and disease forecasting.

Protected Harvest - Outreach to Food
   Industry Professionals & Consumers as
   an Integral Step in Overcoming Producer
   Resistance in the Adoption of IPM.
   Protected Harvest certifies farms that
   meet measurable biointensive IPM
   production standards. Project developed
   and distributed multiple tools for
   communicating audience-specific reduced
   risk pest management information to
   farm-based sales people, food industry
   professionals (retailers, brokers,
   distributors), and consumers.

Rainforest Alliance - IPM Education in
   the Tropics: Dissemination of Best
   Practices. Rainforest Alliance
   incorporated IPM techniques into
   comprehensive guidelines for the
   sustainable production of cacao, citrus,
   flowers and ferns; and created full IPM
   manuals for coffee and bananas. This
   project disseminated the IPM guidelines
   and manuals to small farmers
   throughout the tropics via training
   workshops and the web. IPM guidelines
   and manuals were also shared
   throughout the Sustainable Agriculture
   Network in Colombia, Brazil, Ecuador,
   Costa Rica, Honduras, Guatemala,
   Mexico, Belize and El Salvador.

South Central Idaho Biological Control
   Steering Committee: Elaine County
   Idaho Biological Knapweed Control
   Project. Expanded the Camas Biological

   Control Project model to create an
   extensive biological weed control
   program in Elaine County and south-
   central Idaho. Established a weed
   biocontrol program in south-central
   Idaho by releasing biological control
   insects and monitoring the success of
   these releases using high school students
   as awork force.

Southwest Technical Resource Center
   for IPM in Schools and Child Care
   Facilities conducted 24 on-site school
   audits and provided classroom training
   for 478 school employees and pest
   control professionals. Phone assistance
   was provided to more than 1,000 school
   staff and stakeholders on pest
   management topics. Interactive
   assistance on school IPM was provided
   to approximately halfofthe 1,039
   school districts in Texas. Curricula for
   training school IPM coordinators were
   improved and expanded in 2004.
   Awards program for excellence in IPM
   were established to promote model
   school districts.

Town of Amesbury, Massachusettsis
   implementing IPM on its athletic fields,
   parks and cemeteries with a focus water
   supply protection and compliance with
   the 2000 Massachusetts Children and
   Families Protection Act. IPM
   implementation was expanded from 102
   acres  school-managed property to include
   520 acres of public works and private
   landscape for a total of over 720 acres.
   In addition, 16,500 citizens were
   educated on the environmental concerns
   and advantages of home and farm
   pesticide reduction and better land
   management techniques.

Urban/Ag Ecology created the Pesticide
   Hazard and Exposure Reduction Zones
   in the Landscape (PH AER) which
   provides a framework for setting
   measurable risk-reduction goals.  The
   system provides clear measures of
   compliance combined with management
   flexibility and allows policymakers,
   advocates, and mangers to clearly set and
   understand risk-reduction objectives, as
   well as to ascertain if these objectives
   have been met. PH AER is designed to
   allow universal implementation for any
   landscape grounds management
   setting, regardless of size or region.

  • Bay Area Stormwater Management
    Agencies Association - Our Water Our
    World: Statewide Expansion and
  • Cornell University -A Manual and
    Extension Program on Weed Ecology
    and Ecological Weed Management
  • Massey Services-EliminatingIndoor Use
    of Pesticides in the Florida Public School
  • Michigan State University -Delivery of
    Multi-faceted IPM Training to Reduce
    Pesticide Risk in Vineyards
  • Michigan State University -Reducing
    Worker Exposure to Pesticides by
    Implementing IPM Practices in
    Blueberry Production
  • Safer Pest Control Project - Statewide
    Partnership In Implementing IPM in
    Illinois Child Day care Facilities
  • Texas Agricultural Extension Service &
    Southwest Technical Resource Center -A
    Model IPM program for Hospitals
  • University of Florida-Landscape
    Maintenance IPM Trainingto Promote
    Reduced-Risk Pest Management
  • University ofVermont-Greenhouse
    IPM: Spreadingthe Word to Growers

  • Indiana University School of Public and
    Environmental Affairs - School IPM
    Program (Monroe Co., IN Implementa-
    tion Model) Evaluation and Program
    Improvement as
    a Tool for the
    Future N ational  :
    Implementation   . -^\
    of IPM in
  • International
    Urban IPM
    Association -
    Operations for
    the International
    Urban IPM
  • Monroe Co. IPM
    Model Imple-     jv"-:
    mentation Team
    - Implementa-
    tion of IPM in Public Schools in
    Ohio - Developing a successful model
    for state-wide adoption by schools,
    Cooperative Extension, state lead
    agencies, and the pest management
  • Urban/AgEcology Consulting
    Services & Community Environmen-
    tal Council - Reduced Risk Zone
    Management Model for School and
    Park Landscape Managers

    The cooperative agreement between
NFIPME and EPA has been integral to
the success of PESP and ESB's efforts to
reduce pesticide risk. Because of a
shared commitment to IPM implementa-
tion and pesticide risk reduction, our
joint efforts help us accomplish much
more than either organization could
possibly achieve on its own.
    The grants aw arded by N FIPME
provide direct assistance to pesticide user
groups and organizations that influence
pesticide use. These grants have sewn many
seeds that have proven beneficial to BPPD,
OPP, and N FIPME's mutual objective of
pesticide risk reduction.
    Model programs, initially funded by
NFIPME, have proven to be adaptable and
expandable to many areas ofthe U.S. The
IPM in schools and retailer efforts provide,
perhaps, the best examples. The Monroe
County IPM in Schools model is being
adopted by school districts in numerous
    Bay Area Stormwater Management
Agencies Association' t,QurWaterQurWorld
model of homeowner and retailer education
on alternatives to conventional lawn care
insecticides is now being applied in the
Chesapeake Bay region.
                                                                                                                        Page 41

                                       AMERICAN FARMLAND  TRUST
      EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs
  provides funding to American Farmland
  Trust (AFT) to award grants to improve
  American agriculture.  AFT also works
  with EPA to develop tools to increase
  the effectiveness of IPM implementation
  and track the environmental impacts of
      AFT works with potential grantees
  to help them set performance targets for
  increased IPM adoption and pesticide
  use/risk reduction that are appropriate
  for their commodity and region. To
  track changes in pesticide  exposure,
  AFT is helping several grantees analyze
  their pesticide field data in theoretical
  models to predict the potential impact
  and exposure risks of biointensive IPM.
  AFT is also helping to increase the use
  of biological pesticides, expand IPM to
  include nutrient management and
  improvements in soil quality, link the
  IPM activities of all federal agencies
  and find additional resources to
  implement IPM.

      In 2004, AFT continued to work
  with EPA to increase IPM implementa-
  tion and track environmental impact by:
    • Setting performance measures for
      IPM implementation.  AFT worked
      with EPA Strategic Agricultural Initiative
      specialists develop a digital toolbox that
      they and prospective grantees can use to
      setperformancemeasures and quantify
      the benefits of grants.
    • Tracking changes in pesticide
      exposure. AFT ran pesticide use data
      collected from IPM projects through
      theoretical models to determine the
      potential impact and exposure risks of
      biointensive IPM. Three current EPA-
      funded projects (Michigan celery,
      Californiawinegrapes and Protected
      Harvest/Gerber) are using theoretical
      models to measure reductions in
      toxicity; growers in Wisconsin and
      Florida also used models to monitor
      reductions in impacts.
    • Increasing IPM Implementation.
      AFT helped gran tees reach their
      performance targets, identified opportu-
      nities to link IPM activities of federal
Page 42
        agencies, developed a website to
        provide farmers and technical service
        providers with links to resources to
        implement IPM practices and other
        conservation measures, and worked
        with U SDA to implement more
        rigorous performance measures for
        IPM adoption.
        Improving Experimental Use
        PermitsProcessfor Plant Incorpo-
        rated Protectants. At the request of
        OPP's Biopesticides and Pollution
        Division, AFT worked with EPA
        national and regional staff to organize,
        facilitate and record an interactive
        workshop on EUPs with the stake-
        holder community. The proceedings
        are available online ativiviv .epa.gov/
        pesticides/biopesticidesl new sipip-eup-
        prelim -guid.htm
                 Far mJ and Trust
SAV. :,':; TILK L.APJU TILA-L- SuaTJi JN.1-; Us
        AFT helped growers implement
    integrated pest management and reduce
    pesticide risk by funding the following
    projects identified through a competitive
    process under a cooperative agreement
    with EPA.

    Beyond Risk Reduction / Designing a
       Comprehensive Certification
       Program for Gerber Food
       Products. With funding provided
       by AFT, Protected Harvest is
       working with the Gerber Products
       Company to develop a credible,
       verifiable, sustainable farm program
       for the growing and processing of
       foods for infants and children (about
       80% of the market). The goal of the
       project is to produce certifications
       standards for Gerbers' suppliers of
       peas, snap beans, peaches and carrots.
       To date, the project has accomplished
       the following:
      • completed the final draft standards for
        both snap beans and peas;
      • collaborated with Gerber staff on a
        Gerber Company Plan that requires
        Gerber perform remedial action  to
    mentor poorer growers towards
    improvement; and
  • updated the Wisconsin eco-potato
    toxicity model (created with AFT's
    help) to account for different types of
    exposure in assessingrisks ofpesticides
    to human health, workers and
     Leverage: On September 15,2004,
   U SDA aw arded a C onservation
   Innovation grant of $999,982 from
   EQIP funds to Protected Harvest to
   use a Gerber-inspired framework to
   assist CA tree-fruit producers in
   meeting air quality, water quality and
   water conservation requirements in
   an environmentally sound manner.

A Systems Approach to Implement
   Area-Wide Metrics that
   Demonstrate the Impacts of
   Widespread IPM Adoption in All
   Major California Wine Growing
   Regions. This two-year project,
   begun in 2003, provides funds to the
   California Sustainable Wine Growing
   Alliance to implement, evaluate, and
   improve the Code of Sustainable
   Wine Growing Practices (SWP).
   SWP is a self-assessment workbook
   that includes IPM, soil, water, crop,
   ecosystem, and additional sustainable
   approaches and practices with a built-
   in system to measure performance.
   To date the project has accomplished
   the following:
  • completed 75 self-assessment work-
  • collected data from 568 growers assessing
    more than 124,000 acres (22% of
    statewide total) and from winery facilities
    producingnearly 100 million cases of
    wine (38% of statewide total);
  • increased environmental performance by
    improvingecosy stem management that
    enhance biodiversity and increase the
    abundance ofnatural enemies; and
  • conducted statistical analyses to investi-
    gate correlations between IPM and
    related practices (soil, water, viticulture
    and ecosystem management) and
    environmental impacts are on going.
     Leverage: On September 15,2004,
   USDA awarded a Conservation
   Innovation grant of $475,000 to the
   project to help accelerate technology

   transfer as part of the Environmental
   Quality Incentives Program (EQIP).

Functional Ecology: A Catalyst for
   Change in Tree Fruit Integrated
   Pest Management. Using a grant
   form AFT, Michigan State
   University's Center for Integrated
   Plant Systems is developing
   ecological indicators for Michigan's
   IPM cherry orchards to help growers
   access funds from EQIP and the
   Conservation Security Program.  This
   is the first time ecological
   measurements are being developed
   for farmers to use to track progress in
   the ecological health of their orchards
   as a result of IPM adoption. So far, the
   project has resulted in the following:
  • 16 growers and consultants are helping
    themselves and researchers link the
    functional ecology ofnematodes, carbon
    assimilation, mites and microlepidoptera
    in their orchards to overall orchard
  • researchers are currently testing these
    indicators on six apple, six cherry and six
    peach sites in key fruit grow ing regions
    across the state. They are reporting
    progress on mite indexing, soil and duff
    microorganisms andnutrient analysis
    and soil quality profiles.

Adoption of Improved Crop and Soil
   Management Practices to Eliminate
   Bare-Ground Fallow and Reduce
   Reliance on Pesticides by Hawaiian
   Farmers.  Crop Care Hawaii, LLC
   and the Hawaii Agricultural Research
   Center are working with Pioneer Hi-
   Bred to reduce soil
   erosion and pesticide
   and nutrient run-off
   from agriculture in
   Hawaii -  a huge
   environmental challenge
   that is endangering
   Hawaii's reef system.
   Pioneer Hi-Bred has
   significant acreage on
   Oahu and Maui planted
   to produce genetically
   engineered seed corn.
   The project has targeted
   12 farmers on 2,000
   acres, mostly  on former
   sugar cane plantation
   properties.  Current accomplishments
   of the project include:
  • on-farm trials are now located at eight
    sites representing 1,000 acres;
  • field demonstration plantings of
    cover crops include sunn hemp, lana
    vetch, oats, winter wheat and barley;
  • cooperators are testing two soil
    amendments, Maui Liquid Compost
    Factor (LSF) and Effective Microor-
    ganisms; and
  • monitoring is being conducted on
    fields for impacts on soil fertility,
    runoff and nematode populations.
     Leverage: The project cooperators
   secured 100 Ibs of sunn  hemp from
   USDA NRCS, adapted to Hawaii
   conditions and the USDA Plant
   Materials Center on Molokai agreed
   to grow out seed for distribution to
   North Shore area growers. Waialua
   High School students are helping with
   research plot set-up, sampling and
   outreach to growers.

IPM Practices to Reduce
   Organophosphate and Carbamate
   Pesticide Usage in Pineapple. With
   funding provided by AFT, the
   University of Hawaii, Plant and
   Environmental Protection Sciences,
   seeks to reduce pesticide use on
   pineapple, the major agricultural
   commodity in Hawaii,  cultivated on
   over 20,000 acres.
     Pineapple is the major agricultural
   commodity in Hawaii  and relies
   upon organophosphate and carbamate
   insecticides and nematicides for
   control of mealybug wilt and
   postplant nematode control. This
   project directly addresses the
   challenges facing the pineapple
   industry in its transition toward safer
   pest management practices.
   Performance targets for this project
  • increase the use of an ant monitoring
    and control system by commercial
    fields to 40%; and
  • eliminate the postplant application of
    organophosphate nematicides on 30%
    of the pineapple treated each year.

Advancing IPM for Celery Growers
   in Michigan, California and
   Florida.  Celery growers in
   California, Michigan and Florida
   have undertaken a collaborative
   project to implement IPM as part of
   USDA's RAMP grant program. The
   project will result in the following:
  • Michigan growers will reduce their
    use of B2 carcinogens
    (chlorothalonil) by two sprays on 20
    percent of Michigan celery acreage,
    and test a weather monitoring system
    for reducing these sprays even
  • establishment of a task force to reach
    out to 41 growers to track their
    willingness over time to use reduced
    risk fungicides and forecasting
    systems as a result of the USDA
  • testing of three environmental
    indicator models with data from 10
    celery fields.  The models being
    tested are EYP (the Dutch Yardstick
    model), SYNOPS_2 (German model)
             and the Benbrook model.
             • field trials to evaluate
             conventional (Bravo, Tilt)
             and reduced risk (Amistar)
             fungicides for controlling
             late blight, early blight and
             crater rot. Two of the trials
             investigate disease predic-
             tion systems and methods
             to delay the initial fungi-
             cide application.
                                                                                                                      Page 43

                              BIOPESTICIDES  DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
       Last year, EPA entered into an inter-
   agency agreement with USDA's Interregional
   Research Project M (IR4) to administer a
   competitive grants program to fund field
   demonstrations of biopesticides used
   within IPM systems.
       The goal of the Biopesticide Demon-
   stration Project is to reduce the barriers to
   increased adoption of biopesticides
   nationally by funding field demonstrations
   of effective biopesticides within integrated
   pest management systems.
       Barriers to the use of biopesticides
   include concerns about efficacy, ease of
   application, cost, limited availability, and lack
   of resources for grower training. Many
   biopesticide companies are small and lack
   the resources and field presence that is
   necessary for effective market penetration.
   However, grower-to-grower training within
   commodity organizations has proven to be
   a potent tool for behavioral change.
       With few exceptions, biopesticides are
   not intended to function  as stand-alone
   products that can be substituted one-for-
   one with conventional pesticides. Because
   biopesticides are frequently species-specific in
   their targets and operate via a non-toxic
   mode of action, they are most effective
   when used within integrated systems.
       This project is increasing awareness of
   effective options for integrating biologically-
   based technologies into existing crop
   products systems and is promoting the use
   of novel combinations of biopesticides to
   enhance product performance.
       In 2004, 42 proposals were submitted
   in response to a request for proposals. EPA
   and IR4 developed a system for screening
   and rating proposals based on efficacy,
design and risk reduction potential. A
review panel of six IR-4/EPA staff
awarded $102,000 in funding for nine
    In initial reports, almost all of the
projects showed positive findings in
respect to efficacy. Following is a brief
summary of each project:

Maine Mycotrol/Blueberry Flea
   Mycotrol (Beauvaria), Imidan and
   Entrust were similar in their control
   of flea beetle larvae and all were
   better than the control. About 83% of
   larvae collected 1 or 12 days after
   application of Mycotrol died. In the
   field, Mycotrol combined with
   Spinosad provided 100% control of
   flea beetle.
NY Serenade /Apple Diseases
   Spray programs including Serenade in
   rotation with conventional products
   performed equal to the grower
   standard for the control of apple scab,
   powdery mildew and fireblight.
Long Island Biopesticides Powdery
   Mildew/ Pumpkin
   The biopesticides Oxidate or Trilogy
   rotated with Quintec provided greater
   than  about 90% season long control of
   powdery mildew. Oxidate, Sporan,
   Trilogy, Bugitol, Eco-Erase, andJMS
   stylet oil alone were similar to Bravo
   and Quintec early season, but were
   not as good in later ratings.
Michigan Codling Moth / Apples
   Trial was conducted on 800 acres.
   Combinations ofpheromone and
   codling moth granulosis virus were
                      used. Moth
                      captures in
                      orchards that
                      had  previously
                      were never
                      more than  two
                      per trap and
                      rarely reached
                      one  per trap in
                      the protected
                      areas.  In areas
                      that never used
                      before the
   populations were greater and they
   had greater than 20 per trap. Fruit
   injury was 43% less in the area wide
   project and never exceeded 1.5%.
   Through posters displayed in local
   farm supply center, at least an
   additional  800 acres on adjacent farms
   voluntarily chose mating disruption.
Mississippi Dollar Spot/
   Zerotol alone or EcoGuard (B.
   linchineformis) rotated with Daconil
   Ultrex or TurfShield  (T. hanganum}
   rotated with Chipco 26019 had about
   a 55% reduction in dollar spot while
   Daconil reduced dollar spot reduced
   52%.  Chipco 26019 alone only had
   15% dollar spot control.
Colorado Corn Earworm/Sweet Corn
   Nuclear polyhedrus virus rotated
   with Spinosad was as  effective as a
   pyrethroid (Warrior)  program in
   con trolling corn earworm. Spinosad
   is expensive compared to the
   pyrethroid or the virus. The most
   likely adoption by growers is
   expected to be a tank mix between the
   pyrethroid and the NPV.
Arizona Sclerotinia/Lettuce
   Has not yet been initiated. Will be
   grown as a winter  crop.
Wyoming Mycotrol/Grasshoppers
   Mycotrol (Beauvaria) decreased the
   density of grasshoppers in pasture or
   rangeland, but mortality in the
   control plots made it difficult to
   access. Carrier oil  did not effect
California Powdery Mildew/Grapes
   Serenade in rotation with Pristine,
   Procure, Flint or  Quintec was as
   effective as in controlling the
   incidence and severity of powdery
   mildew in grapes as rotations among
   conventional products.

    Based on its first year success, EPA and
IR4intend to continue funding this
project. A request for proposals has already
been issued for 2005 with proposals due in
December, 2004.
    EPA is also developing a communica-
tion strategy to distribute the results of the
projects to growers and groups that could
benefit from such information.
Page 44

    Under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide
and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), OPP and the
Regional Offices make grants to states and
all Federally recognized N ative American
Tribes. This program has been supported
by State and Tribal Assistance Grants
(STAG) funds since 1996.
    In 2004, $507,000 was available for
grants for research, public education,
training, monitoring, demonstrations,
and studies that advance pesticide risk
reduction. These projects complemented
ongoing risk reduction efforts and PESP
activities in EPA's ten Regions.
    Eligible applicants include the 50 States,
the District of Columbia, the U.S. Virgin
Islands, the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, any territory or possession of the
United States, any agency or instrumentality
of a state including state universities, and all
federally recognized N ative American tribes.
Local governments, private universities,
private nonprofit entities, private busi-
nesses, and individuals are not eligible.
    The organizations excluded from
apply ing directly are encouraged to work
with eligible applicants in developing
proposals that include them as participants
in the projects.
    ESB coordinates the announcement of
these grants through the Federal Register.
However, each EPA regional office collects,
reviews, selects the proposals for funding,
and administers the specific projects in their
    Traditionally, each EPA region selects
one project for funding. Then, the top
unfunded projects from each regional office
are pooled, further reviewed, and funded
until the available funds are obligated.
    The following regional projects
were underway in 2004:

    The final report for the following
project was submitted:

Maine Department of Agriculture, Food,
   and Rural Resources: Implementing
   Integrated Pest Management in
   Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont
     Approximately 600 people
   attending school IPM training
   workshops in the three project states.
   Of these, 32 were trained as trainers
   to assist schools in IPM adoption
     Based on questionnaire responses,
   all participating schools have
   implemented more IPM practices and
   almost all have improved monitoring,
   record-keeping, and decision-making.
     An open house on IPM
   implementation drew some 250
   parents, pest management
   professionals, school staff,
   administrators, and EPA

The followingprojects are ongoing:

  • University ofVermont:
    Reducing Pesticide Risks in
    Cold Climate Wine Grape
    Production -An Emerging New
    Crop in Northern New England
  • Maine Board of Pesticides
    Control:  YardScaping: Mini-
    mizing Reliance on Pesticides
    by Example Using Demonstra-
    tion, Outreach and IPM
  • University of Maine: Manage-
    ment of the European Fire Ant
    in Eastern Maine
  • University of Connecticut:
    Reducing the Risks Associated
    with Herbicides for Growing
    Pumpkins in New England
  • University of Massachusetts:
    Multilingual IPM Education
  • University of Rhode Island: Bacillus
    thuringiensis japonensis strain Buibui
    for control of scarab pests of
    turfgr asses
  • University of Massachusetts: Inte-
    grated Pest Management for Indoor
    and Structural Pests of Schools in the
    Northeast USA.

  • University of Puerto Rico Agricul-
    tural Extension Service: Development
    of a Landscape IPM Program in
    Puerto Rico
  • University of Medicine & Dentistry
    of New Jersey and Rutgers Univer-
    sity Environmental and Occupational
    Health Sciences  Institute: Urban
    Residential IPM Strategies
  • Research Foundation of State
    University of New York, for and in
    conjunction with, State University of
    New York: Transferring Knowledge
    of Shrub Ecology and Management to
    Promote Integrated Vegetation
    Management on Powerline Corri-
  • University of Puerto Rico: Pesticide
    Risk Reduction in Coffee: Analysis
    of Survey Results and Training on
    Pesticide Use Safety and Integrated
    Pest Management (IPM).
  • Pennsylvania State University:
    Collaborative IPM Education and
    Outreach in Underserved Row
    House Communities in Philadelphia
  • Virginia Tech: Integrated Pest
    Management Training for Virginia
  • Penn State University: Development
    of Outreach Education Materials and
    Programming for Pesticide Use
    Reduction and Safety Practices
  • Penn State University, Pennsylvania
    Department of Agriculture, &
    Pennsylvania Department of Health:
                                                                                            (Continued on p. 46)
                                                                                                                   Page 45

 (Regional Grants - from p. 45)
       IPM in Schools: Developing Local
       and Interstate Partnerships and
       Strategies for Implementation

     •  North Carolina Department of
       Agriculture and Consumer Services:
       Residential IPM Strategies in Rural
       Native American Communities
     •  Alabama Department of Agriculture
       & Industries & Auburn University:
       Strategic Implementation of IPM in
       Schools Utilizing a Statewide
     •  North Carolina State University: Action
       Thresholds and Residue Analysis for
       Integrated Pest Management in North
       Carolina Elementary Schools
     •  University of Florida: Increasing
       Adoption of Reduced Risk Practices in
       the Production of Woody Ornamen-
     •  University of Georgia: Evaluation
       and Incorporation of Low-Risk
       Insecticides into Southeastern Peach
       Pest Management

     •  Purdue University: Pest Manage-
       ment Provider Education Network to
       Support IPM Adoption in Indiana
       Child Care Settings
     •  University ofWisconsin-Madison:
       Promoting the Use of Advanced IPM in
       Wisconsin Apple and Cherry
     •  Michigan State University: Michigan
       Field Crop Ecological Weed
       Management: A Decision Support

  •  University of Wisconsin-Madison:
    Reducing Pesticide Use and Risk in
    Urban Landscapes
  •  Michigan State University Extension:
    An Educational Outreach Extension
    Program to Train Fruit IPM Scouts;
    A Pilot Program Targeting Migrant
    Workers and Hispanic/Latino
    Blueberry Growers in Michigan
  • University ofWisconsin: Interactive
    Tutorial: Pesticides and Pest Manage-
    ment at Home and in School

  •  Southwest Technical Resource
    Center, Texas Cooperative Exten-
    sion, Measuring the Success of School
    IPM in Texas
  • Oklahoma State University: Documen-
    tation of Pest Management Practices and
    Implementation of IPM In Oklahoma
    Public Schools
  • Oklahoma State University: Pesticide
    Risk Reduction Utilizingthe PEET
    Multi-Objective Decision-Support
  • Texas Cooperative Extension: South-
    west Technical Resource Center For IPM
    in Schools and Child Care Facilities;
    Interactive IPM Assistance Program
    for Schools in Texas, New Mexico
    and Oklahoma
  • Texas A&M University: Reducing
    Chemical Insecticide Inputs and
    Costs by Using Biologically-based
    Insecticides Against Diamondback
    Moth and Cabbage Looper on Cole
    Crops in Texas
  • Oklahoma State University: Devel-
    opment of Model Fumigation
    Management Plan Utilizing Closed
    Loop Fumigation
  • Oklahoma State University: Pest
    Management In and Around Urban

  • Missouri Department of Agriculture:
    Implementing Integrated Pest Manage-
    ment Practices in Missouri Schools
  • lowaDepartmentofAgricultureand
    Land Stewardship: Implementing IPM
    in Midwestern States Schools
  • University ofNebraska: Learning
    Modules & In-Service Training for IPM
    in K-12 Schools in Nebraska
  • Thomas Jefferson Agricultural
    Institute: An Outreach IPM, Re-
    duced-Risk Pesticide and Biological
    Control Program for Greenhouse
    and Nursery Growers in Missouri
  • University ofNebraska: Using Inert
    Dusts to Detect, Assess and Control
    VarroaMitesinHoney BeeColonies

  • Colorado State University Coopera-
    tive Extension: Reducing Pesticide
    Use by  Floriculture Professionals in
    the Inter-Mountain Western Region
    of the United States through Educa-
  • Montana State University: Evaluating
    Reduced Risk Pesticides for Enhanced
Page 46

    Biological Activity
  • North Dakota State University:
    Conservation of pollinators as a yield
    management strategy in sunflower
  • University of Colorado: Developing
    Sustainable Management Procedures
    for Widespread Noxious Weeds on
    Public Lands in the Colorado Front
  • Mountain Resource Center: High-
    way 285 Living Roadsides Project
  • Montana State University: Auto-
    mated Aeration Strategies to Manage
    Insects in Stored Wheat on Montana
    Farms; Evaluation of Efficacy and
    Promoting Public Awareness

    The final report for the following
project was submitted in 2004:

Lodi-Woodbridge Winegrape
   Commission: Grower Self-
   Assessment Program
     Growers were introduced to the
   Lodi Winegroiver'sWorkbookvn. a
   workshop setting hosted by
   neighboring growers. The project
   manager and technical coordinator
   instructed growers on how to fill out
   the workbook for one of their
     During 38 workshops for growers
   who had never attended a workshop,
   295 growers who farm 63,000 acres in
   LWWC (70% of the acreage)
   completed the workbook. Fourteen
   second round workshops for growers
   wishing to fill out the workbook
   again were attended by 60 growers
   who farm 40,000 acres. In the future,
   one workshop a month  will be held
   with each devoted to a different
   chapter in the workbook
              The following projects
              are ongoing:

              • Lodi-Woodbridge
              Winegrape Commission:
              Developing an In-field
              Inspection Program and
              Chain of Custody
              Procedures for LWWC
              Sustainable Winegrape
              Productions Certification
              • University of Califor-
    nia-Davis: Improved Management of
    the Egyptian Alfalfa Weevil in
    California to Protect Environmental
  • California Department of Pesticide
    Regulation: Almond Pest Manage-
    ment: Alternatives to Dormant
    Organophosphate and Pyrethroid
  • Hawaii Department of Agriculture:
    Pest Management and Pesticide
    Training for At-Risk Korean Farmers
    in Hawaii
  • Lodi-Woodbridge Winegrape
    Commission: Grower Self-Assess-
    ment Program

  • Washington State University:
    Integrated Pest Management for the
    Raspberry Beetle, Byturus unicolor
    (Say), Using Life Stage Prediction and
    Cultural Management in Red
    Raspberry Production
  •  Oregon State University: Long Live
    "MagNet": Positive Points for IPM
    Tool Use
  •  Washington State University: Good
    Bug, Bad Bug A Novel Approach to
    IPM of Solanceous Weeds
  •  Oregon State University: "MAG-
    NET"-A Collaboration to Reduce
    Chlorpyrifos Dependence and
    Promote IPM Adoption in Root
    Crop Production
  •  Washington State University-Prosser:
    Green Peach Aphid Management in
  •  Oregon Wine Advisory Board &
    Oregon Department of Agriculture:
    Promotion of Integrated Production
    of Winegrapes -The LIVE Certifica-
    tion Program for Oregon Vineyards

    The projects supported through  this
program are extremely diverse, ranging
from IPM implementation in specific
crops to IPM implementation in schools.
The diversity of projects signifies the
broad interest in pesticide risk reduction
that exists in each EPA Region. These
projects are important for many reasons,
including fostering cooperation between
the Regional Offices and OPP and, most
importantly, reducing pesticide risk  at
the local level.
                                                                                                                    Page 47

                              C ENTER FOR AGRICULTURAL PARTNERSHIPS
       In the summer of 2003, the Center
   for Agricultural Partnerships (CAP)
   initiated a project to develop, use,
   validate, and document a process for
   identify ing key opportunities and
   workingwith members to carry out
   projects that result in measurable
   reductions of pesticide risks. Work on
   the project continued in 2004 and
   following is an update on the project.
       The project was designed to follow a
   work plan developed by CAP then
   validated with private and public sector
   project participants. As with all CAP
   projects, the work plan is a key part of
   project implementation.
       Developing a work plan in conjunc-
   tion with project partners ensured that
   the tasks  and outcomes were clearly
   understood and shared by all partici-
   pants, timelines were realistic, expecta-
   tions articulated, and resources ad-
   equately allocated.  As the project
   proceeded, the work plan also provided
   a yardstick for gauging progress and
   ensuring that all of the important
   milestones are met.
       The work plan outlined five steps
   for the project:
     1. identify key opportunities/problems;
     2. determine key partners with whom
       to work in each sector;
     3. design the project;
     4. guide project efforts; and
     5. evaluate and document process and
       project efforts.
       Risk  reduction efforts for the period
   ranged from broad educational programs
   (presentations at an international
   symposium on vegetation management
   on rights  of way) and demonstrations
   (GIS and  IPM on public and private golf
   courses) to the initiation of IPM certifi-
   cation (reduced risk
   pesticides in schools)
   and the field imple-
   mentation of reduced
   risk practices  in
   agriculture (phero-
   mone mediated
   mating disruption in
   Georgia peach
       Although the
   focus of these projects
   ranged from increas-

Page 48
ing awareness to actual implementation
of new practices, they are all developed
using the same process for identifying
the most promising opportunities and
organizing the most effective partner-
                Center for
              1  Agricultural
    As a result, partners gained valuable
experience in the organization and
management of risk reduction efforts
that will produce substantive results and
that can be applied to other critical
    In the spring and summer of 2004,
the program was evaluated through a
combination of individual interviews
and a roundtable discussion. Overall the
project was judged to have been valuable
in focusing attention on risk reduction
opportunities in  a focused and
systematic way.
    Partners developed a greater
ability to assess the critical compo-
nents of a successful IPM project and
gained a much better understanding of
where grower groups are in the risk
reduction and sustainable agricultural
continuum and what their real world
needs are.
    A number of lessons were learned in
the process of implementing the project
that can be used to inform subsequent
    Participants pointed out that
following all of the steps in  selecting an
opportunity helps  avoid surprises later
in the process. At the same  time, the
process can be labor intensive and needs
              to be started earlier in  the
                  Developing w o rk
              plans helps partners
              clarify the tasks they need
              to accomplish and
              provides a basis for
              writinggrant proposals.
              In developing the work
              plans, it was  necessary to
              focus the project on the
              needs of the next adopters
              of the new practice or
    The people most versed and
enthusiastic about the innovation
typically have not thought about the
innovation from the perspective of
someone who has not yet used the
technology. However, it is essential that
they do so if they want to facilitate its
further adoption. In addition, the process
of developing work plans is best done in
face-to-face sessions with all of the project
    Finally, participants would benefit
significantly from having a set of SOPs for
participating in the project at the beginning
of the effort to which they could have
referred throughout the project.
    In response to the evaluation, efforts
have since focused on the development and
use of a guidance document, A Guide to
Facilitating the Basic Steps in the Dev elopm entof
Partn ership Effortsfo r Reducing Pesticide Risks.
As recommended in the evaluation, the
manual was developed in late summer
and introduced in early September.
    The process for 2004-2005 will be to
focus on broadening the number of
participants, using a structured process for
understanding and identifying opportuni-
    While the intention is to facilitate the
initiation of risk reduction efforts on the
ground, there is an increased emphasis on
creatingbetter workingrelationships that
result in a broader foundation for risk
reduction efforts.
    The steps in the work plan for 2004-
2005 are:
  1. developing and providing materials
    that support the facilitation effort;
  2. conducting facilitation efforts with
    private and public sector partners;
  3. communicating with key audiences
    about the efforts and their results.
    Through this work the capacity for
identifying and organizing effective risk
reduction efforts in the public and private
sectors will be increased.

    Through a Congressional appropria-
tion known as a set-aside, EPA provides
grant monies to the Economic Develop-
ment Alliance of Hawaii (EDAH) to fund
demonstration projects which accelerate the
commercialization ofbiotechnology and,
thereby, will reduce pesticide use in tropical
agricultural production.
    In April 2004, EDAH issued the
latest request for proposals for new
demonstration projects that focus on the
commercialization of biotechnologies to
reduce pesticide use in Hawaii.
    Following are projects funded by

Maui Liquid Compost Factor (LCF) as
   Nematicide Replacement and Growth
   Enhancer -Bryan Hiromoto
     LC F is created with mushrooms
   grownusingthewaste-streams of
   pineapple juices and sugarcane wash.
   Growers ofpineapple, foliage, cut
   flowers, and vegetables are testing LCF
   formulations. LC F eliminates clearing
   and replanting costs, thereby
   affording pineapple growers
   significant production cost savings
   and improving profitability.
   Additional findings indicate that LCF
   strengthens the plants receiving the
   applications and increases resistance
   to nematodes.
     Several commercial companies are
   evaluating the use ofMaui LCF as a
   fertilizer additive. Testingon other crops
   is underway across the U.S.

Biocontrol of Nematodes on Pineapple
   Pineapple Growers Association of
   Hawaii / Maui Pineapple Company
     The Hawaii pineapple industry has
   reduced production acreage over the last
   decade due to increased competition
   from countries with lower production
   costs. However, U.S. production costs
   could be lowered if dependence on high
   priced nematicides could be reduced.
   This would also contribute to increased
   environmental stability.
     LCF and MeloCon trials will be
   conducted in commercial pineapple
   fields and yield parameters recorded.
   Results of the trials will provide the
   pineapple industry with information
   on how to incorporate these products
   into the pineapple cropping system.
     This project will focus on pineapple
   plantations on Oahu and Maui. The
   trials will be established on the Dole
   Food Company plantation in Wahiawa
   and at Maui Pineapple Company's
   H aliim aile plan tation.

Biocontrol of Anthurium Decline
   C aused by Radophclus similis
   Hawaiian Anthurium Industry
     Anthurium decline, caused by
   Radopholussimilis,is awidespread and
   serious disease in Hawaii. Anthurium
   will be treated with LC F, a bionutrient
   product that improves plant growth.
   Improved growth assists plants in
   recovery from diseases and may increase
   initial tolerance to pathogen infection.
     Yields from anthurium plants are
   reduced by 50% and productive plant life
   reduced from 25% by infestations of the
   burrowingnematode. The shortened
   production life means increased
   replanting costs, one of the most costly
   aspects of anthurium production. LCF
   is expected to improve plant growth and
   aid plants in recovery from disease

Commercialization of Neem Oil for
   Pest Control in Sweet Potato
   Don Mahi
     This trial will investigate the use of
   neem oil and neem cake derived from
   neem tree seeds to control nematodes
   and wireworm in sweet potato crops.
   The focus crop for this study will be the
   Okinawan sweet potato.
     Neem oil, which is non-toxic to
   humans, could reduce/eliminate the use
   of other pesticides. In addition to an
   increasing consciousness among
   consumers about the risks ofpesticides
   and the increasing reluctance of farmers
   to apply them, agrowingbase ofneem
   trees, which grow in few other places in
   the U.S., presents the possibility that
   neem product production can emerge as
   a vital part of Hawaiian agriculture.
     Neem production is complicated
   due to the requirement for EPA
   registration of agricultural products
   containing azadirachtin. Kauai has the
   only certified neem orchard in the
   U.S. able to produce neem oil.

Development, Demonstration, and
   Commercialization of Modern and
   Environmentally Friendly Practices
   in Hawaiian Taro Farming,
   including  the Use of Pesticide-
   Reducing and Related
   HPC Foods & Grove Farm Company
     This project is designed to (a) show
   and train Hawaiian taro farmers how to
   make their farms environmentally
   friendly and sustainable and more
   productive; (b) rejuvenate the Hawaiian
   taro industry by helpingit evolve away
   from antiquated farmingpractices; (c)
   reverse the declining trend in Hawaiian
   taro production/output and (d) prepare
   the state to supply the huge potential
   demand for this crop in other product
   applications/uses or market niches.
     A 10-acre model farm will be created
   on the island of Kauai to utilize
   compost fortified with probiotics as the
   "pesticide". The use of compost in
   wetland taro farming serves a dual
   beneficial function as both a natural
   pesticide and nutrient/ fertilizer
   supplement —even more so as a key
   player in the soil management strategy.
     About 500 acres have been dedicated
   by Grove Farm for Hawaiian taro
   farming and other agriculture

       The single greatest barrier to the
  implementation of IPM, sustainable
  agriculture, and safer pest control is the
  lack of communication.  ESB's stake-
  holders often are not immediately aware
  of changing regulatory activities that
  impact their pest management efforts.
  Furthermore, small grower and research
  groups do not know to whom to turn to
  within EPA to report IPM problems, find
  out what work is in progress to address a
  problem, or get strategic help and training
  to effectively implement new IPM practices.
       Finally, when successes are realized by
  individual groups, the results are not
  communicated to the full sector as
rapidly as they could be.
    In 2003, ESB made significant progress
in fosteringinformation exchange to its
PESP members and liaisons. Program staff
are holding more meetings with members,
developing tools to generate greater
feedback from members, and disseminating
sector-based information through electronic
and printed means.
    In 2004, ESB will expand its commu-
nications outreach program.  It will
coordinate and report research and
technology demonstration activities to
ensure that members are informed in
advance of regulatory, research, and
education activities that might help or
                                                                                     affect them. PESP will utilize liaisons
                                                                                     and program staff to further develop and
                                                                                     maintain interactive relationships with and
                                                                                     between members, better educate the
                                                                                     grower community, and provide mecha-
                                                                                     nisms for two-way information ex-
                                    ESB C COMMUNICATIONS PROGRAMS
    The most prominent component of
PESP's communications efforts is the PESP
Website (iviviv.epa.gov/oppbppd1/PESP).
Located in the Grants and Partnerships
portion of the revised OPP Website, the
PESP site provides an array of information
geared toward members, potential members,
liaisons, and the general public with an
interest in pollution prevention.
    The site includes an overview and
history of PESP, membership lists, contact
information for members and their liaisons,
all issues of the PESP Update, member
strategies, and grants information.  It is
intended to be a comprehensive source of
information on the program and our
    The site received an average of 27,160
hits per month during 2004. The average visit
to the site lasted about 17 minutes. Chart 6
details the hits and visit lengths by month
(through October) for 2004.

     Chart 6.2004 EPA PESP WttMit* Statittiet
      i   t
                                                 The National Foundation for IPM
                                             Education maintains the site iviviv .pesp.org.
                                             This site was established by NFIPME as part
                                             of a cooperative agreement it had with EPA
                                             before EPA's PESP site was created.  The
                                             site provides information on PESP-related
                                             grants awarded by NFIPME and directs
                                             visitors to EPA's PESP site for program-
                                             matic information.

                                             PESP UPDATE
                                                 The PESP Update is a newsletter on
                                             PESP issues and activities mailed to 1,300
                                             addressees, including PESP members, EPA
                                             Headquarters and Regional staff, USDA and
                                             FDA, environmental organizations,
                                             commodity groups, and interested individu-
                                             als.  All issues of the Update are available
                                             through the PESP Website at iviviv.epa.gov/
                                             oppbppdl/PESP/publications.htm. Itisissued
                                             two to four times each year.
                                                 Last year, the Update reports on newly
                                             registered biopesticides, articles on ESB
                                             programs including the Lawns and the
                                                  Environment Initiative and Biopesti-
                                                  cide Demonstration Project, informa-
                                                  tion on funding opportunities, and
                                              *   new s about exciting initiatives being
                                              2}   undertaken by PESP members.

                                              a>   PESP NEWS EXCHANGE
                                              •  =     "Vh&PESPNewsExchangeK a
                                                E specialty news and alert service
                                                  focused on the advancement and
                                              -•    exchange of information related to
                                                  PESP issues and activities.  It is
                                                  produced by EPA and disseminated
                                          via e-mail to PESP members and other
                                          stakeholders.  News and alerts are tailored to
                                          the specific needs and requests of members.
                                          The main goals of the Exchange are:
                                             •  provide timely news and information
                                               relevant to the advancement of
                                               environmental stewardship practices;
                                             •  keep the PESP community informed of
                                               OPP news and activities;
                                             •  help members gain easy access to
                                               PESP, EPA, and USDA resources;
                                             •  facilitate the exchange ofinformation.
                                               The flagship features of the Exchange are
                                          the sector, EPA, and funding opportunities
                                          sections. Other regular features include
                                          research activities and updates, regulatory,
                                          and legislative updates, and a calendar of
                                          environmentally sustainable events taking
                                          place around the nation.  Important news
                                          stories, education and training announce-
                                          ments, as well as stories from the field are
                                          also regular features.

                                          NATIONAL SCHOOLS UPDATE
                                               At the request  of many school officials,
                                          ESB began publishing an electronic National
                                          Schools Update in 2003. Each edition features
                                          articles by experts in the field of school IPM,
                                          announcements, and news items provided by
                                          EPA regional office contacts.
                                               The quarterly Schools Update is provided
                                          in Adobe PDF format to over 500 state IPM
                                          coordinators,  school officials, parents,
                                          environmental organizations, EPA Schools
                                          Workgroup, EPA Tools for Schools
                                          Program, and EPA's Office of Children's
                                          Health Protection.
Page 50

    Collaboration and coordination for
most of the pesticide environmental
stewardship programs within OPP,
EPA, and externally, is the responsibility
of the Environmental Stewardship
Branch. Thus, ESB staff serve on a wide
variety of steering committees, commis-
sions, and projects that are related to, or
share the goal of environmental steward-
ship and pesticide risk reduction.
    Through these other activities and
programs, ESB is learning from the success
of others and sharing lessons learned and
experience gained from its own programs.

    Last year, ESB staffworked closely
with their colleagues in OPP on the
following activities:
  • provided regular updates ofbranch
    activities in the OPP Weekly (electronic
  • issued environmental stewardship
    electronicinformation bulletins to EPA
    liaisons and other interested OPP staff;
  • met with OPP's Special Review &
    Reregistration Division to discuss
    improvinginformation sharing on
    OPP's reregistration activities with SAI
    and PESP members.
  • participated with the regions in the Week
    in ResidentTrainingandMutual'Account-
    ability Assessm en z'program s;
  • served on OPP's Pesticides in Schools
  • attended Committee to Advise on
    Reassessment and Transition
    (CARAT), Pesticide Program
    Dialogue Committee (PPDC), State
    FIFRA Issues Research and Evalua-
    tion Group (SFIREG),  and other
    meetings on reduced-risk and
    stewardship programs.

    There are several EPA voluntary
and regulatory programs and initiatives
that occur outside of OPP  that affect
OPP's environmental stewardship
programs. ESB staff attended meetings,
reviewed documents, and distributed
materials to participants of these other
    Last year, ESB staff collaborated
with the following:
  • Partnership Programs Coordinating
  • O ffice of Children's Health Protection
    initiatives on children and the aging;
  • Community Action for a Renewed
    Environment (CARE);
  • Office of Prevention, Pesticides & Toxic
    Substances / Office of Air & Radiation
    Partnership Healthy Schools
  • Whole Schools
  • Office of Water's Water Efficiency
  • OfficeofSolidWasteGreenscapes

    Other federal agencies and non-
governmental organizations have programs
and initiatives that impact OPP's environ-
mental stewardship programs.  ESB staff
attend meetings, review documents, and
distribute materials to participants of these
other programs. Last year, ESB staff
collaborated with the following:
  • Federal IPM Steering Committee
  • IPM Symposium 2006 Steeting Com-
  • President's Task Force on Environmental
    Health and Safety Risks to Children
  • U SDA Cooperative State Research,
    Education, and Extension Service
    Regional IPM Centers
  • U SDA Sustainable Agriculture
    Network Program
                                                                5th National
                                                            1PM Symposium
                                                    Delivering on a Promise
                                                   April 4-6. 2006. SL Louts
                                            PESP EVALUATION
    In 2004, the Office of Pesticide
Programs and the Office of the Chief
Financial Officer completed an evaluation of
PESP. The purpose of the evaluation was
to determine which program elements have
made PESP successful and which elements
need improvement or redesign.
    The evaluation had the following
  • assess the effectiveness of PESP's
    member strategy development process;
  • evaluate the capacity of EPA liaisons;
  • determine the criteria for successful
    pesticide risk reduction strategies;
  • apply lessons learned including what
    actions EPA can take to ensure that
    PESP results in measurable risk
    reduction on the national level.
    The contractor assisting with this
evaluation, Industrial Economics, con-
ducted interviews with 36 PESP participants
and stakeholders and analyzed member
strategies and other materials. Interviews
of stakeholders covered a wide range of
topics and provided an excellent insight into
how the program is performing.
    Discussions with members focused on
their motivation for joining PESP and the
logistics and challenges ofparticipation.
    Survey results were compiled into a
database to allow for the synthesis of
crosscutting conclusions from qualita-
tive data. The contractor then worked
closely with ESB staff to interpret these
    The following findings were outlined
by the evaluation:

• PESP fosters a trusting and open relation-
  ship between EPA and the regulated
  community.  This element is particularly
  important for smaller members who do
  not have regular contact with EPA.
• PESP's member relationships have opened
  two-way channels of communication.
                                Page 51

     Various OPP processes have benefited
     from the liaisons' contact with knowl-
     edgeable users and members of the
     regulated community. Liaisons help the
     Agency keep the regulated community
     involved in the registration process, which
     leads to more informed registration
     decisions and reduced frustration among
     regulated entities.
   • PESP has been successful in encouraging
     members to use specific reduced-risk
     pesticides and increasing the acreage under
     IPM. PESP is very effective in encouraging
     organizations to think about pest
     management on alarger scale (i.e., in terms
     of safety and health).

   •ESB staff, liaisons, and members alike were
     interested in improvinginformation
     sharingbetween members, either within
     their sector or outside ofit. Although five
     of the ten members interviewed
     indicated that they shared best practices
     with other members, and five indicated
     that they learned of and implemented
     ideas shared  by other members,
     members indicated that they did not
     receive enough information from EPA.
   • Some PESP members were not dear about
     what the program could offer them. Many
     organizations joined in the hopes of
     securinggrant money; however, once these
     members realized that grant money was
     not guaranteed to PESP members, they
     chose not to stay active in the program.
       Over the years, it has become
   apparent that command and control
   regulation is not the only way to solve
   environmental problems. EPA contin-
   ues to emphasize a balanced approach to
   environmental protection. Voluntary
   programs have proven their value as
   important tools for reducing risks to
   human health and the environment.
       The end of 2004 will mark a decade
   of OPP's efforts to reduce the risk posed
   by pesticide use through voluntary
   programs. We hope to continue and
   even expand many of the efforts de-
   scribed in this report in the years ahead.
       The Pesticides in Schools Initiative
   is building momentum, and we expect
   IPM to be implemented in more schools
   and in rnore parts of the country during
Page 52
• There was general agreement that PESP
  needs to raise the standards to which it
  holds its members. Although members
  are required to submit strategies, there are a
  number of members that fail to do so, and
  many more who fail to submit an annual
    Based on the findings of the evalua-
tion, the followingrecommendations were

Align grants to support EPA's risk
   reduction priorities. EPA and PESP
   members frequently identify mutual
   priorities for risk reduction and specific
   strategies and projects to address those
   priorities. Grants should be targeted to
   provide members with opportunities to
   fund projects that address PESP's strategic
Create an OPP performance measure-
   ment clearinghouse. By gleaning best
   practices from PESP Championsand
   members, PESP should create a one-stop
   source for information related to measuring
   the performance of risk-reduction
Complement liaison guidance  with
   training seminars. EPA needs to clarify
   the specific functions fulfilled by liaisons.
   While a liaison's relationship with their
   member will depend upon the characteris-
   tics of the organization, it would be useful
   for liaisons to receive targeted training on
   strategy development and measurement
1 Enhance liaison participation  through
   increased program support.  Liaisons
   rarely have direct contact with their
the next decade.
     Similarly, the Lawns and the
Environment Initiative will result in
greater adoption of IPM practices by
lawn care professionals and
homeowners once they are educated of
the risks posed by conventional practices
and the benefits afforded by alternatives.
     Outreach  through biopesticide
demonstration projects and continued
grower training in IPM will lead to
further reductions in unnecessary
applications and transitions  from
conventional pesticides to alternative
biological and reduced-risk  chemical
     To achieve continued success, EPA
must do its  part to provide leadership,
coordination, and sufficient resources.
   members. By allocating a portion of OPP
   travel budget to liaison travel, EPA would
   allow liaisons to fulfill a broader and more
   valuable role for members.
1 Reinstate a PESP annual meeting.  EPA
   should have an annual PESP meeting to
   bringmembers and Agency representatives
   together in a collaborative and informative
1 Promote PESP through trade journals.
   PESP should advertise in trade journals to
   gain visibility and improve credibility.
1 Create searchable database of reduced
   risk grant projects. By recording and
   sharing the successes of PESP and Strategic
   Agricultural Initiative grants, EPA may
   foster technology transfer and improve
   communication among regulators, research-
   ers, and pesticide users.
• Ejihance the publicity of PESP
   Champion awards. EPA should consider
   using other EPA awardprograms (e.g.,
   Green Chemistry, WasteWise)as models for
   a meaningful and highly visible PESP
   promotional tool.
1 Assist members with grant applications.
   PESP sector leaders and liaisons should be
   trained as on-demand technical editors for
   members seeking to develop fundable grant
1 Consider umbrella memberships for
   trade associations. EPA should consider
   granting trade associations an "umbrella"
   membership that includes all of the

    ESB has already begun to implement
many of the recommendations of the
evaluation and will carry out other in 2005.
This will enhance our ability to achieve
our goals in the promotion of environ-
mental stewardship, adoption of IPM,
and reduction in the risk of pesticides.
    In addition, OPP staff and manage-
ment must look for way s to align the
strategic goals and activities of both its
regulatory and partnership programs.
This will be achieved through enhanced
coordination, communication,  and a
shared commitment to workingmore
closely together.
    The ultimate success of the program
will largely depend upon the continued
support of our stakeholders, who
volunteer their resources, time, and
talent to further the adoption of IPM and
promote pesticide risk reduction.

  ADDRESS:    PESP (7511C)
                1200 PENNSYLVANIA AVE NW
                WASHINGTON, DC 20460-0001
   WEBSITE:    www.EPA.cov/oppBPPDl/PESP
  INFOLINE:   800-972-7717
Through the Pesticide Environmental Stewardship Program, EPA is working with its partners on our common
goal of reducing the risks from the use of pesticides. This report relays information provided by partner
organizations on their PESP accomplishments. EPA has not confirmed the accuracy of all information
provided.  Mention of organizations, companies, trade names, or commercial products does not constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
                                                                Page 53